Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,457.82100% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-pro; 95% CI [1455.34940240, 1460.28624287]; votes 122575; rank 33 | 1,287.1388% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.87677682, 1291.39199009]; votes 39349; rank 243 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,262.42100% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-pro; 95% CI [1257.72056767, 1267.11330698]; votes 87719; rank 41 | 1,141.4790% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1132.42029588, 1150.51619722]; votes 6936; rank 102 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Meta |
| Family | Gemini 2 5 | Llama 4 Maverick 17b 128e Instruct |
| Model | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Version | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 401.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, tools |
13 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Gemini 2.5 Pro Capabilities
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FAQs
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro is $1.25 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.20 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 2.5 Pro is $10.00 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.696 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 2.5 Pro supports 1,049K and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Gemini 2.5 Pro is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight.
Can Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct understand images?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro is documented with image input; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 2.5 Pro is 66K and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is —.
Do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1, so Gemini 2.5 Pro has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.