Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label 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 | 70.15% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | 1.86s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 565 | 6 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | 89.96% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.91s | 1.32s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 323 | 10 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0036 | $0.0003 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 78.8%(78/99) | 91.9%(91/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 100%(30/30) |
| Text Recognition | 73.3%(22/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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