Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mistral Small 3.1 24B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
Mistral Small 3.1 24B, released on March 17, 2025, is an open-weight multimodal model from Mistral AI, distributed under the Apache-2.0 license. With around 24B parameters and a 128K token context window, it is available in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) variants. The model introduces vision support alongside text, enabling tasks like multimodal reasoning, captioning, and image-based Q&A.
It is multilingual, supporting many languages, and is optimized for fast responses, function calling, structured dialogue, and long-context reasoning. Despite its size, the model can be run locally in quantized formats, fitting on machines with ~32GB RAM, making it accessible to developers outside large cloud setups. However, the output length is smaller than the 128K input window, meaning long generations may require chaining. In addition, using full vision features or the maximum context window significantly increases compute costs, and performance on highly complex reasoning or enterprise-scale tasks still trails larger proprietary frontier models.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mistral Small 3.1 24B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Mistral | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | 24B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.351 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $0.555 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 55.22% | |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 171 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | |
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