Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.4
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro 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
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.4: 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.
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.
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.4 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $2.50 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $15.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 66 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 75.76% | 77.61% |
| Avg Response Time | 6.13s | 7.16s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 11 | 108 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | $0.0052 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 44.4%(4/9) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | 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