Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Gemini 2.5 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 21.9 to 14.8. Gemini 2.5 Flash is 1.0x cheaper per token.
Google · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Gemini 2.5 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 21.9 to 14.8, ranking #172 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.5 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
Gemini 2.5 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 21.9 and ranks #172 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2025
Choose Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
14 reported for Gemini 2.5 Flash · 18 for Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Gemini 2.5 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.
Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens) is 2.8x more expensive than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is more expensive than Gemini 2.5 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 405B Instruct 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
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemini 2.5 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.1 Community License
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 10 months newer than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.
May 20, 2025
1.3 years ago
10mo newerJul 23, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct'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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's cutoff date.
Jan 2025
—
Provider Availability
Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from Google. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Fireworks, Bedrock, Together, Hyperbolic, Google, Replicate.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.