Florence-2 vs GPT-5.4
Compare Florence-2 and GPT-5.4 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Florence-2 vs GPT-5.4 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Florence-2 vs GPT-5.4: Overview
Florence-2, introduced by Microsoft Research at CVPR 2024, is an open-source vision-language foundation model designed to unify diverse computer vision tasks within a single sequence-to-sequence framework. Unlike traditional models that specialize in specific tasks, Florence-2 accepts both images and text prompts and outputs text for tasks such as captioning, object detection, segmentation, OCR, and region-based grounding. It comes in two sizes—Florence-2-base (~230M parameters) and Florence-2-large (~770M parameters)—and is trained on FLD-5B, a large dataset of ~126M images with ~5.4B annotations.
The model demonstrates strong zero-shot and fine-tuned performance, often rivaling larger vision-language systems while remaining lightweight and efficient. Released under the MIT license, all weights are publicly available, making it accessible for fine-tuning and deployment in applications like VQA, content tagging, accessibility, and research. Florence-2’s compact design, versatility, and openness position it as a practical alternative to larger proprietary multimodal models.
GPT-5.4 is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by OpenAI and released on March 5, 2026. It is designed for professional workloads such as advanced software development, research, and agentic automation. The model combines the general reasoning capabilities of the GPT-5 series with software engineering improvements derived from GPT-5.3-Codex. In the API and Codex environments it supports context windows of up to 1 million tokens, enabling long-context reasoning and large-scale code or document workflows.
Compared with GPT-5.2, GPT-5.4 reduces false individual claims by 33% and lowers overall response errors by 18%, improving factual reliability across complex tasks. It is also the first general-purpose OpenAI release with native computer-use capabilities, allowing agents to interact with desktops, browsers, and external applications to complete multi-step workflows. The model family includes three variants: GPT-5.4 (standard), GPT-5.4 Pro for higher-performance workloads, and GPT-5.4 Thinking, a reasoning-oriented version in ChatGPT that presents an upfront plan before generating its response. The API also introduces a Tool Search system that allows models to retrieve tool definitions dynamically, reducing token usage in tool-heavy integrations.
Florence-2 vs GPT-5.4 Comparison Table
| Property | Florence-2 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Microsoft | OpenAI |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 1.1M |
| Parameters | 230M | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.50 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| Open Vocabulary Object Detection | ||
| Phrase Grounding | ||
| Region Proposal | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 77.61% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.16s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 108 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0052 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology