Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 3.8 Flash score 89.4% vs 79.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #10 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.5% vs 68.1%).
- Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper: $0.0045 vs $0.0061 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 12.8s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 11, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.825 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $4.13 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 79.8% | 89.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0045 | $0.0061 |
| Avg speed / sample | 12.76s | 8.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 68.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0 | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6 | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1 | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 72.8% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 78.7% | 89.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 81.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5 | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4 | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon: Overview
Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.
Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.
Gemini 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 79.8% (#10 of 68) for Gemini 3.8 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Carbon leads with 84.5% against 68.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0045 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Carbon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 12.8s. 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.