Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 83 to 33 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Mistral AIPixtral Large (25.02)
33/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context128K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
83/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Pixtral Large (25.02) (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Pixtral Large (25.02) $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Pixtral Large (25.02) 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LitePixtral Large (25.02): Text, Images · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Pixtral Large (25.02) | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 26 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 50 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 83/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Pixtral Large (25.02)Mistral AI | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 3 | 24 (best) |
| Released | Apr 8, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Pixtral Large (25.02)$32.00
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Pixtral Large (25.02) or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Pixtral Large (25.02) (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Pixtral Large (25.02) or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Pixtral Large (25.02) costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite versus $3.00 for Pixtral Large (25.02) (17× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Pixtral Large (25.02) has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Pixtral Large (25.02) and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 128,000 for Pixtral Large (25.02). Maximum output per response: Pixtral Large (25.02) up to 8,192, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Pixtral Large (25.02) accepts text and images; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Pixtral Large (25.02) and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Pixtral Large (25.02) came out Apr 8, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Three-way comparison
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Google
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs o4-mini-deep-researchOpenAI
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Command ACohere
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral AI
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
