Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 12B
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemma 3 12B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 12B 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 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 12B: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
Gemma 3 12B, announced by Google DeepMind on March 12, 2025, is part of the open-weight Gemma 3 family, designed to provide a balance between capability and accessibility. With around 12 billion parameters, it supports multimodal input (text + images) and outputs text, making it useful for reasoning, summarization, Q&A, and visual understanding tasks. The model supports an input context of 128,000 tokens and typically generates up to ~8,000 tokens in output.
The 12B variant is instruction-tuned (“Gemma-3-12B-IT”) and optimized for multilingual use across more than 140 languages. It can run on a single GPU or TPU, offering a lighter compute footprint than very large proprietary models, while still achieving strong performance in reasoning benchmarks. Quantized and lower-precision variants are available to improve efficiency. Limitations include smaller output lengths relative to input capacity, scaling hardware needs at larger sizes, and performance below massive proprietary models on the most complex multimodal or reasoning-heavy tasks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Gemma 3 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 79.1% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.71s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 294 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0043 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 60%(6/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
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