Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Gemini 3.1 Pro score 87.3% vs 76.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 and #17 of 69 models), so Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (88.1% vs 72.2%).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper: $0.0094 vs $0.010 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster: 8.4s vs 13.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
Both support 6 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 87.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0094 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 13.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 81.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 83.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 83.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5 |
| Counting (high) | – | 84.2% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| Identification (high) | – | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 86.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 88.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Hydrogen performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 87.3% (#3 of 69) against 76.8% (#17 of 69) for Gemini 3.1 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads with 88.1% against 72.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0094 per sample against $0.010. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.4s per inference against 13.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.