Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Mistral Large 4
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Mistral Large 4 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 Mistral Large 4 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Mistral Large 4 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 77.7% to 38.9%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.0% (#10 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) for Mistral Large 4.
Mistral Large 4 is both cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.0032 per sample) and faster (8.8s vs 14.7s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Mistral Large 4 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Mistral | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 1.05T total, 49B active |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.680 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $2.09 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Phrase Grounding | Not listed | Supported |
| Video Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 83.0% | 68.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 14.66s | 8.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 88.4 | 92.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.8 to 93.3 |
| OCR (high) | 89.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.5 to 89.6 | 87.1% ±4.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.6 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 95.9% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 94.8 to 96.9 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Mistral Large 4: Overview
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.
Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.
Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.0% (#10 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) for Mistral Large 4. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 77.7% against 38.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.0032. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.68 per 1M input tokens and $2.09 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Mistral Large 4 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.8s per inference against 14.7s. 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.