Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 3 Flash score 89.4% vs 65.7% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #32 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 38.6%).
- Gemini 3 Flash is about a third of the cost: $0.0024 vs $0.0061 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 3 Flash is faster: 5.8s vs 8.7s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 3 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 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | 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 | $0.500 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | 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 | 65.7% | 89.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0024 | $0.0061 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.83s | 8.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 38.6% | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 |
| Counting (low) | 67.6% | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 |
| Counting (high) | – | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% | 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 |
| OCR (low) | 63.9% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 89.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 64.9% | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 |
Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon: Overview
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
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 65.7% (#32 of 68) for Gemini 3 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 38.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0024 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.8s per inference against 8.7s. 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 object detection and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.