Roboflow

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5.4 Nano

Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano 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
GoogleGemma 4 31B
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-5.4 Nano
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5.4 Nano: Overview

Gemma 4 31B

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-5.4 Nano

GPT-5.4 nano is a high-throughput model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, as the efficiency-optimized entry in the GPT-5.4 family. Engineered for cost-sensitive production environments and latency-critical workloads, it features an expanded 400,000-token context window that enables the processing of large document batches or extensive logs in a single pass. The model is primarily optimized for text-heavy operations, serving as a premier engine for high-volume classification, data extraction, ranking, and the orchestration of lightweight sub-agents where speed and low per-token costs are the primary requirements.

While it supports text and image inputs, GPT-5.4 nano is designed as a text-first worker rather than a specialized visual reasoning tool. In multi-model architectures, it is best utilized for structured text tasks and simple coding sub-tasks, leaving intensive vision reasoning and UI navigation to its sibling, GPT-5.4 mini. Compared to the previous GPT-5 nano, this version provides a significant leap in reliability for structured outputs and tool calling, making it a dependable and economical choice for developers building scalable, automated pipelines that require rapid execution at the edge of the GPT-5.4 ecosystem.

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5.4 Nano Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 4 31BGPT-5.4 Nano
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Mar 2026
Context Window256K400K
Parameters31B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.120$0.200
Output $/1M$0.350$1.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
62.69%
Avg Response Time34.59s3.72s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2941.4K
Median output tokens169105
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001$0.0004
Defect Detection
80%(12/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
77.8%(7/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
30%(3/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
64.3%(9/14)
Spatial Understanding
73.7%(14/19)
57.9%(11/19)
OCR
Overall Score
84.72%
62.45%
Avg Response Time11.82s2.59s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290105
Median output tokens13187
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001$0.0001
Focused Scene OCR
86.9%(86/99)
55.6%(55/99)
Handwritten Math
50%(5/10)
20%(2/10)
License Plate Recognition
93.3%(28/30)
83.3%(25/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
70%(21/30)
VQA & Extraction
85%(51/60)
66.7%(40/60)

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