Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grounded SAM
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grounded SAM side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grounded SAM live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grounded SAM: 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.
Grounded SAM is an open-vocabulary image segmentation model developed by IDEA Research, released in January 2024 under the Apache 2.0 license. It combines Grounding DINO, a zero-shot open-vocabulary object detector, with the Segment Anything Model to produce precise segmentation masks for objects identified through free-form text prompts. The two models are used sequentially: Grounding DINO localizes objects from a text query, and SAM generates the corresponding segmentation masks.
Grounded SAM enables zero-shot instance segmentation without task-specific training data, making it applicable to domains where labeled segmentation data is scarce. It supports arbitrary text queries and can segment objects not represented in standard training sets. The model is commonly used in automated labeling pipelines, robotic perception, and domain-specific vision applications requiring open-vocabulary segmentation.
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grounded SAM Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Grounded SAM |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | IDEA Research | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Jan 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 66 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 75.76% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.13s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 11 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 44.4%(4/9) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
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