Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-4.1 mini
Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-4.1 mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-4.1 mini 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
GPT-4.1 mini is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-4.1 mini: Overview
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.
GPT-4.1 mini, released by OpenAI in April 2025, is a smaller, faster, and cheaper variant of GPT-4.1 designed for high-throughput and cost-sensitive applications. It is multimodal, handling both text and images, and inherits the full model’s strengths in coding, structured outputs, and long-context reasoning. With support for up to 1 million tokens, it enables reliable processing of extended documents, multi-file codebases, and lengthy conversations while keeping latency low.
GPT-4.1 mini offers an efficient alternative to GPT-4.1 and replaced GPT-4o mini as the default ChatGPT model in May 2025. Despite being smaller, it matches or outperforms GPT-4o on several benchmarks, particularly for instruction following and real-world coding tasks. Ideal use cases include large-scale conversational systems, affordable developer tools, document analysis, and interactive assistants where speed and cost are critical.
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-4.1 mini Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Apr 2025 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 31B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.120 | $0.400 |
| Output $/1M | $0.350 | $1.60 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | |
| Avg Response Time | 34.59s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 169 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 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