Gemini 4 Carbon vs SAM 3
Gemini 4 Carbon: 89.4% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 of 68 models). We have not run SAM 3 through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score. Run both on your own image below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon vs SAM 3 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 4 Carbon vs SAM 3 Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | SAM 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Not listed |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Classification | Demo | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Instance Segmentation | Not listed | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| OCR | Demo | Not listed |
| Open Vocabulary Object Detection | Not listed | Supported |
| Video Object Tracking | Not listed | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Not listed |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | Not listed | Supported |
Both support 2 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Zero-shot Detection | Not listed | Supported |
Both support 2 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 89.4% | Not evaluated |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | – |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | – |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 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) | 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% ±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) | 87.2% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | – |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | – |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs SAM 3: Overview
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.
Released on November 19th, 2025, Segment Anything 3 (SAM 3) is a zero-shot image segmentation model that “detects, segments, and tracks objects in images and videos based on concept prompts.” This model was developed by Meta as the third model in the Segment Anything series.
Unlike its previous SAM models (Segment Anything and Segment Anything 2), you can provide SAM 3 with the prompt “shipping container” and it will generate precise segmentation masks for all shipping containers in an image. SAM 3 generates segmentation masks that correspond to the location of the objects found with a text prompt.
Frequently Asked Questions
Gemini 4 Carbon is released under Proprietary, while SAM 3 uses Custom. In practice: Gemini 4 Carbon: commercial use per vendor terms. Licensing often matters more than raw accuracy for commercial deployments, so check the terms against how you plan to ship.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for segmentation and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.
