Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-6.1 Sol 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-6.1 Sol 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-6.1 Sol on Vision Evals
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 67.4%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 76.8% (#13 of 63) against 81.7% (#5 of 63) for GPT-6.1 Sol.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper ($0.0068 vs $0.010 per sample), while Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster (8.4s vs 12.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 81.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0068 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 12.82s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 75.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 75.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol: 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-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.
On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 81.7% (#5 of 63) against 76.8% (#13 of 63) 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 Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% against 67.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0068 per sample against $0.010. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. 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 12.8s. 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.