Compare Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite (Google) and Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (Google) 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 Flash Litegoogle/gemini-2.5-flash-lite | $0.02 / 1M tokens | $0.075 / 1M tokens | 1M | StreamingTool callingJSON modeVision | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1000-3000ms | Catalog | Platform curated | |
| Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)google/gemini-3.1-flash-image | $0.094 / 1M tokens | $0.564 / 1M tokens | 131.1k | StreamingJSON modeVisionLong context | image understanding, multimodal chat | 1000-3000ms | Catalog | Platform curated |
FAQ
Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite is cheaper ($0.02 / 1M tokens input / $0.075 / 1M tokens output) vs Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) ($0.094 / 1M tokens input / $0.564 / 1M tokens output). Actual cost depends on your input/output token mix — estimate it with the pricing calculator.
Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite is larger (1M tokens) vs 131.1k tokens.
Both target Vision. Pick Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite to optimize cost, or Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite for the longer context window. Test both on real prompts before committing production traffic.