Roboflow

Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-5.6 Terra

Gemini 4 Hydrogen and GPT-5.6 Terra score 87.3% vs 66.0% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 and #32 of 69 models), so Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads overall.

  • Gemini 4 Hydrogen wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on OCR (86.7% vs 56.3%).
  • Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper: $0.0094 vs $0.010 overall average cost per sample.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra is faster: 9.5s vs 13.2s per sample.

Compare Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-5.6 Terra 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 4 Hydrogen
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Terra
Run to compare this model.

Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-5.6 Terra on Vision Evals

Score by taskGemini 4 HydrogenGPT-5.6 Terra
OCR
86.7
56.3
Reasoning
88.1
60.9
Object Detection
81.0
60.6
Counting
83.8
65.8
Identification
96.9
86.5

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-5.6 Terra Comparison Table

Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026

PropertyGemini 4 HydrogenGPT-5.6 Terra
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateNov 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$2.00
Output $/1MNo published price$12.00
Vision Tasks
Chart Question AnsweringNot listedSupported
Document Question AnsweringNot listedSupported
Image TaggingNot listedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationNot listedSupported
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Both support 6 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
87.3%
66.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.0094$0.010
Avg speed / sample13.23s9.52s
By task
Object Detection (low)
81.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9
$0.016
60.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7
$0.014
Object Detection (high)
83.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8
$0.022
61.3%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6
$0.026
Counting (low)
83.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5
$0.0041
65.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6
$0.0056
Counting (high)
84.2%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8
$0.012
62.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9
$0.0076
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0030
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0034
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0039
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0038
OCR (low)
86.7%
$0.0089
56.3%
$0.011
by category
Single value
78.7%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
93.6%
Text localization
83.9%
Single value
36.1%
Transcription
79.9%
Structured JSON
76.8%
Text localization
42.3%
OCR (high)
87.2%
$0.026
56.9%
$0.021
by category
Single value
80.9%
Transcription
95.3%
Structured JSON
93.1%
Text localization
83.7%
Single value
37.4%
Transcription
80.2%
Structured JSON
77.3%
Text localization
41.9%
Reasoning (low)
88.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7
$0.0046
60.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6
$0.0051
Reasoning (high)
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0
$0.013
65.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2
$0.0067

Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-5.6 Terra: Overview

Gemini 4 Hydrogen

Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.

GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.

GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Hydrogen performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.3% (#3 of 69) against 66.0% (#32 of 69) for GPT-5.6 Terra. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads with 86.7% against 56.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0094 per sample against $0.010. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.6 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.5s per inference against 13.2s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.