Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 31B
Compare Gemma 3 27B and Gemma 4 31B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 31B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 31B: Overview
Gemma 3 27B, announced on March 12, 2025, is the largest open-weight model in Google DeepMind’s Gemma 3 family. With around 27 billion parameters, it is multimodal—accepting both text and images as input and producing text outputs. It supports a 128,000-token context window and typically generates up to ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to process multi-page documents, extended conversations, or large batches of images in a single prompt.
The model is instruction-tuned in its “-it” variants for chat, reasoning, and summarization use cases, and it supports structured outputs and function calling. It is multilingual, covering over 140 languages. Deployment is flexible: the full BF16 model requires ~46 GB of VRAM, but quantization-aware training (QAT) versions in 8-bit or 4-bit reduce the footprint significantly, allowing more accessible use outside large-scale clusters. While it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance than smaller Gemma models, it remains lighter and more open than proprietary systems, making it well-suited for research, development, and fine-tuned applications.
Gemma 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.
For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.
Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 3 27B | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 128K | 256K |
| Parameters | 31B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.080 | $0.120 |
| Output $/1M | $0.450 | $0.370 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 58.21% | 67.16% |
| Avg Response Time | 33.60s | 34.59s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 169 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 84.72% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.82s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 131 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 86.9%(86/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 85%(51/60) | |
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