Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) (2025) and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (2026) are compact production models from Google DeepMind. Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) ships a 33K-token context window, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite ships a 1M-token context window. On pricing, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite costs $0.25/1M input tokens versus $0.3/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite fits 32x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) for tighter calls.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-04-01 | 2026-05-07 |
| Context window | 33K | 1M |
| Parameters | — | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Unknown | Proprietary |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2025-01 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.3/1M tokens | $0.25/1M tokens |
| Output price | $30/1M tokens | $1.5/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Multimodal | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | Yes |
| Tool use | No | Yes |
| Structured outputs | No | Yes |
| Code execution | No | Yes |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, multimodal input: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, function calling: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, tool use: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, structured outputs: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, and code execution: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) lists $0.3/1M input and $30/1M output tokens, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists $0.25/1M input and $1.5/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lower by about $8.59 per million blended tokens. Availability is 3 providers versus 2, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite supports 1M tokens, while Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) supports 33K tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) costs $0.3/1M input and $30/1M output tokens. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite costs $0.25/1M input and $1.5/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite open source?
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) is listed under Unknown. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is listed under Proprietary. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) is available on Google AI Studio, GCP Vertex AI, and OpenRouter. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is available on Google AI Studio and OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.