Florence-2 vs Gemini 3 Flash+ 1 other
Compare Florence-2, Gemini 3 Flash, and 1 other vision model side-by-side. Test these models on Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection in the Playground.
Compare these vision models 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
Model Overviews
Florence-2, introduced by Microsoft Research at CVPR 2024, is an open-source vision-language foundation model designed to unify diverse computer vision tasks within a single sequence-to-sequence framework. Unlike traditional models that specialize in specific tasks, Florence-2 accepts both images and text prompts and outputs text for tasks such as captioning, object detection, segmentation, OCR, and region-based grounding. It comes in two sizes—Florence-2-base (~230M parameters) and Florence-2-large (~770M parameters)—and is trained on FLD-5B, a large dataset of ~126M images with ~5.4B annotations.
The model demonstrates strong zero-shot and fine-tuned performance, often rivaling larger vision-language systems while remaining lightweight and efficient. Released under the MIT license, all weights are publicly available, making it accessible for fine-tuning and deployment in applications like VQA, content tagging, accessibility, and research. Florence-2’s compact design, versatility, and openness position it as a practical alternative to larger proprietary multimodal models.
Florence-2 vs Gemini 3 Flash Comparison Table + 1 other
| Property | Florence-2 | Gemini 3 Flash | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Microsoft | Anthropic | |
| Category | open | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Dec 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | — | 1.0M | 200K |
| Parameters | 230M | ||
| License | MIT | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | |||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $5.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $25.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | |||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo | |
| Vision Language | |||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | |||
| Open Vocabulary Object Detection | |||
| Phrase Grounding | |||
| Region Proposal | |||
| Model Features | |||
| Foundation Vision | |||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | |||
| Multimodal Vision | |||
| Zero-shot Detection | |||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | |||
| Overall Score | 74.63% | ||
| Avg Response Time | 9.85s | ||
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | ||
| Median output tokens | 290 | ||
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0014 | ||
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | ||
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | ||
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | ||
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | ||
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | ||
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