Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Google · Native Multimodal MoE with Thinking · Modalities: Text, Vision, Audio, Video · Released 2025-03-03
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 77.4/100Architectural & Production Profile
Million-token multimodal model capable of analyzing hours of video, audio streams, and massive codebase repositories.
Long-context document and video analysis, large codebase ingestion, and multimodal reasoning.
- Architecture
- Native Multimodal MoE with Thinking
- Modalities
- Text, Vision, Audio, Video
- Max Output Tokens
- 65,536 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $3.438 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Gemini 2.5 Pro
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Gemini & Vertex AI → | Primary Host | $1.25 | $10.00 | 700ms | 80 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$1.25/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.313/1M read · $1.25/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Gemini 2.5 Pro (36)
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (150ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 80 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 93.8% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (320ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 84 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 84.2% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 68.8% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (3.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5.5 delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (20ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 95 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 93.2% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (595ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 210 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 79.2% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (360ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 105 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 85.4% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 87.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (8.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (40ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 80 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 96.0% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 5.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (180ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 78 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 90.1% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (750ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 80 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 74.0% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 82.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (5.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (390ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 165 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 91.3% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs OpenAI o3
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (450ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 80 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 87.7% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude 4 Opus
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (220ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 80 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 87.1% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (160ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 72 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 78.5% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro share identical input pricing at $1.25 per 1M tokens ($10.00 vs. $10.00 output). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (280ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 98 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 82.4% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (220ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 95 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 86.2% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 84.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (6.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (565ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 175 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 74.0% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (420ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 185 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 91.7% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (622ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 265 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 74.0% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 12.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (20ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 125 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 81.4% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 88.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (290ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 78 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 74.0% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (585ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 155 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 74.0% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 12.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (250ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 80 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 74.0% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 36.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (510ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 130 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 74.0% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (390ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 80 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 74.0% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (420ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 185 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 74.0% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 76.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (4.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (590ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 180 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 74.0% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 72.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (540ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 120 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 74.0% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (610ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 175 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 74.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4o
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (420ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 100 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 74.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (480ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 140 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 74.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6.1 Sol delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (180ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 135 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 92.4% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 delivers lower response latency at 620ms TTFT (80ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 88 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 84.6% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 76.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (4.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (550ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 160 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 74.0% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (555ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 165 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 74.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (320ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 75 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 74.0% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs o1
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (1900ms faster than o1) with 80 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 74.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 84.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (6.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (580ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 140 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 74.0% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Gemini 2.5 Pro cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.313 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 75%.
What are Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves 63.8% on SWE-bench Verified, 89.8% on HumanEval coding, 74% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 85.2% on MMLU-Pro, and 95% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 56.8/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro supports a 1,024,000 token context window (65,536 max output tokens) and operates at 700ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 80 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Long-context document and video analysis, large codebase ingestion, and multimodal reasoning.