Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra 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 Astra on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Astra leads 87.2% to 72.2%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 83.3% (#6 of 53) against 86.6% (#1 of 53) for GPT-6 Astra.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper ($0.0093 vs $0.030 per sample), while GPT-6 Astra is faster (6.7s vs 7.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra Comparison Table
Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 5, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-6 Astra |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $10.00 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $50.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| 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 Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 83.3% | 86.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0093 | $0.030 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.81s | 6.67s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 82.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.0 to 82.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 83.6% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.5 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 80.2% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 81.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 82.4 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 92.6% | 91.9% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.5% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 95.9% | 88.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 91.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 91.8 |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 87.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.1 to 88.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 91.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.4 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra: 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 Astra is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI that accepts text and image input and produces text output. It is positioned as the company's flagship system for long-horizon end-to-end work spanning complex reasoning, software engineering, computer use, browsing, research and document creation. The model exposes a graduated reasoning effort control with low, medium, high, xhigh and max settings, and it accepts a change to that setting partway through a conversation rather than only at request time. It launches as a single tier with no smaller mini or nano variants, carries a context window of roughly 1.05 million tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, and reports a knowledge cutoff of April 30, 2026.
OpenAI reports evaluation results across agentic, scientific and security benchmarks, including 96.0% on GPQA Diamond, 64.6% on Terminal-Bench Science, 72.6% on OSWorld 2.0, and a perfect score on ExploitBench, along with near saturation on FrontierMath Tier 4 and ARC-AGI-3. The model supports computer use, structured outputs, streaming, programmatic tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, prompt caching and persisted reasoning, and it keeps earlier context windows searchable so it can recover requirements or tool outputs from previous turns. OpenAI describes Astra as the first of its models to cross the Critical cybersecurity capability threshold under its Preparedness Framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Astra performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-6 Astra averages 86.6% (#1 of 53) against 83.3% (#6 of 53) 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, GPT-6 Astra leads with 87.2% against 72.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0093 per sample against $0.030. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; GPT-6 Astra is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Astra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.7s per inference against 7.8s. 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.