Roboflow

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.7

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Grok 4.7 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.7 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.2% to 61.7%.

Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (10.4s vs 33.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.6 FlashGrok 4.7

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.6 FlashGrok 4.7
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$2.00
Output $/1M$3.75$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video ClassificationSupportedNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.1%
63.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.020
Avg speed / sample10.43s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
57.1%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4
$0.0041
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)
70.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2
$0.0093
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
80.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0034
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4
$0.0089
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
99.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0015
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)
100.0%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0
$0.0033
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR (low)
71.8%
$0.0030
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
68.3%
Transcription
89.4%
Structured JSON
82.9%
Text localization
42.5%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
77.4%
$0.014
–
by category
Single value
68.7%
Transcription
90.3%
Structured JSON
89.3%
Text localization
62.1%
Reasoning (low)
77.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1
$0.0031
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
81.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4
$0.0091
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.7: Overview

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.

On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 80.2% against 61.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.020. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.4s per inference against 33.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.