Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B 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
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Gemma 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.
For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 31B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | $0.120 |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | $0.350 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 67.16% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | 34.59s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 6 | 169 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0001 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | 84.72% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | 11.82s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 10 | 131 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | 86.9%(86/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 85%(51/60) |
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