Compare Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) and Meta: Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) by price, context, capabilities, and latency.
Side by side
Compare price, provider, context, capabilities, latency, and source basis.
| Model | Provider | Input | Output | Context | Capabilities | Best for | Latency | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google: Gemini 2.5 Flashgoogle/gemini-2.5-flash | $0.3 / 1M tokens | $2.50 / 1M tokens | 1M | Tool callingVisionJSON modeLong context | long-document summarization, image Q&A | 900-2800ms | Catalog | OpenRouter if available | |
| Meta: Llama 4 Maverickmeta-llama/llama-4-maverick | Meta | $0.15 / 1M tokens | $0.6 / 1M tokens | 1M | JSON modeLong contextStreamingLow cost | open-model workflows, cost-sensitive long context | 950-2800ms | Catalog | OpenRouter if available |
FAQ
Meta: Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper ($0.15 / 1M tokens input / $0.6 / 1M tokens output) vs Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.3 / 1M tokens input / $2.50 / 1M tokens output). Actual cost depends on your input/output token mix — estimate it with the pricing calculator.
Both offer the same context window: 1M tokens.
Both target Low cost. Pick Meta: Llama 4 Maverick to optimize cost, or Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash for the longer context window. Test both on real prompts before committing production traffic.