Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and Gemma 3 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B: 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.
Gemma 3 27B, announced on March 12, 2025, is the largest open-weight model in Google DeepMind’s Gemma 3 family. With around 27 billion parameters, it is multimodal—accepting both text and images as input and producing text outputs. It supports a 128,000-token context window and typically generates up to ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to process multi-page documents, extended conversations, or large batches of images in a single prompt.
The model is instruction-tuned in its “-it” variants for chat, reasoning, and summarization use cases, and it supports structured outputs and function calling. It is multilingual, covering over 140 languages. Deployment is flexible: the full BF16 model requires ~46 GB of VRAM, but quantization-aware training (QAT) versions in 8-bit or 4-bit reduce the footprint significantly, allowing more accessible use outside large-scale clusters. While it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance than smaller Gemma models, it remains lighter and more open than proprietary systems, making it well-suited for research, development, and fine-tuned applications.
Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $0.080 |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $0.450 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 74.63% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 9.85s | 33.60s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 290 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 63.2%(12/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 93.01% | |
| Avg Response Time | 12.40s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 160 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0010 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 94.9%(94/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 100%(10/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 88.3%(53/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology