Gemini 3 Flash vs Grok 4.6
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and Grok 4.6 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 3 Flash vs Grok 4.6 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 Flash vs Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3 Flash leads 42.6% to 23.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3 Flash averages 75.5% (#20 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6.
Gemini 3 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0097 per sample) and faster (4.1s vs 17.5s per sample).
Gemini 3 Flash vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 75.5% | 68.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0021 | $0.0097 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.10s | 17.55s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 42.6% | 23.8% ±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 24.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1 |
| Counting (low) | 67.6% | 65.8% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3 |
| Counting (high) | – | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% | 84.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | – | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 87.6% | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 96.9% | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 64.9% | 61.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% | 63.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2 |
Gemini 3 Flash vs Grok 4.6: 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.
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 75.5% (#20 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3 Flash leads with 42.6% against 23.8%. 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 $0.0021 per sample against $0.0097. Gemini 3 Flash is priced at $0.50 per 1M input tokens and $3.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.6 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 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.1s per inference against 17.5s. 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.