Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 1B

Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

4 benchmarks

Gemini 2.5 Flash outperforms in 4 benchmarks (FACTS Grounding, Global-MMLU-Lite, GPQA, SimpleQA), while Gemma 3 1B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$2.50
Best providerGoogle
Google
Gemma 3 1B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Gemini 2.5 Flash specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only Gemini 2.5 Flash specifies output context (65,536 tokens).

Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Google
Gemma 3 1B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Gemma 3 1B does not.

Gemini 2.5 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemma 3 1B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.5 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Gemma 3 1B uses Gemma.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Gemma 3 1B

Gemma

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Gemma 3 1B was released on 2025-03-12.

Gemini 2.5 Flash is 2 months newer than Gemma 3 1B.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

May 20, 2025

11 months ago

2mo newer
Gemma 3 1B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Gemma 3 1B's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.5 Flash's training data extends to 2025-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Gemma 3 1B's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Jan 2025

Gemma 3 1B

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher FACTS Grounding score (85.3% vs 36.4%)
Higher Global-MMLU-Lite score (88.4% vs 34.2%)
Higher GPQA score (82.8% vs 19.2%)
Higher SimpleQA score (26.9% vs 2.2%)
Google
Has open weights
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
GoogleGemma 3 1B
Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
Gemma 3 1B

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 1B

Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash is made by Google and Gemma 3 1B is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemini 2.5 Flash scores Global-MMLU-Lite: 88.4%, AIME 2024: 88.0%, FACTS Grounding: 85.3%, GPQA: 82.8%, MMMU: 79.7%. Gemma 3 1B scores IFEval: 80.2%, GSM8k: 62.8%, Natural2Code: 56.0%, MATH: 48.0%, HumanEval: 41.5%.
Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Gemma 3 1B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Gemma). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.