Gemini 3 Flash vs SAM 3
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and SAM 3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3 Flash 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Flash vs SAM 3: 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.
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.
Gemini 3 Flash vs SAM 3 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | SAM 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| Video Object Tracking | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| 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