Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.6
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.6 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 Grok 4.6 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 Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.1 Pro leads 67.6% to 23.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 83.3% (#9 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0093 vs $0.0097 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 17.5s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $6.00 |
| 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% | 68.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0093 | $0.0097 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.81s | 17.55s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.6% | 23.8% ±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 24.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 65.8% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3 |
| Counting (high) | – | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 84.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | – | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 92.6% | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 95.9% | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 61.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 63.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.6: 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.
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.1 Pro performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.3% (#9 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 67.6% against 23.8%. 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 $0.0097. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 7.8s per inference against 17.5s. 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.