Gemini 3 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick
Compare Gemini 3 Pro and Llama 4 Maverick side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Image Captioning, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 3 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick 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
Gemini 3 Pro is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick: Overview
Gemini 3 Pro is Google DeepMind’s flagship multimodal frontier model, built for high-accuracy reasoning and large-scale context understanding across text, images, audio, video, code, and documents. It delivers major gains over Gemini 2.5 Pro, supported by a 1M-token window and strong performance on Google-reported benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond, MMMU-Pro, and Video-MMMU.
The model excels at structured outputs, tool use, and agentic coding, enabling complex multi-step workflows and analysis of entire books, codebases, or long videos in a single prompt. Positioned as Google’s top production model, it balances advanced reasoning with broad multimodal capabilities, making it well suited for research assistants, automation agents, coding systems, and enterprise-scale document and media analysis.
Llama 4 Maverick, introduced on April 5, 2025, is one of the first models in Meta’s Llama 4 family, designed as a natively multimodal model supporting text + image inputs with text outputs. It employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 128 experts, activating ~17B parameters per token out of a pool of ~400B total parameters. This design improves scalability, efficiency, and reasoning capacity. Maverick has a 1M-token context window, enabling it to handle large documents, extended conversations, and multimodal reasoning. Its knowledge cutoff is August 2024.
The model is released under the Llama 4 Community License and comes in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) versions. Maverick is widely deployed via Hugging Face, Google Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock, and Oracle Cloud, making it one of the most accessible large open-weight models. However, it outputs text only (no image/audio generation) and, while input capacity is huge, output limits are typically much smaller. The MoE design also raises hardware demands, as maintaining 128 experts requires significant compute resources, and Meta’s license introduces restrictions around commercial-scale use.
Gemini 3 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Pro | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 400B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.600 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.30s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | |
| Avg Response Time | 0.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 472 | |
| Median output tokens | 10 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 76.8%(76/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 60%(6/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
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