Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Astra
Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-6 Astra 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-6 Astra 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
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Astra on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Astra scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Astra leads 82.1% to 47.5%.
Overall, Gemma 4 31B averages 57.7% (#39 of 63) against 83.4% (#2 of 63) for GPT-6 Astra.
Gemma 4 31B is cheaper ($0.0015 vs $0.034 per sample), while GPT-6 Astra is faster (9.9s vs 34.4s per sample).
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Astra Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 20, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | GPT-6 Astra |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.1M |
| Parameters | 31B | Undisclosed |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.200 | $10.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $50.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 57.7% 4/5 tasks | 83.4% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0015 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 34.36s | 9.94s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 47.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0 | 82.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.0 to 82.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 83.6% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.5 |
| Counting (low) | 51.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0 | 80.2% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 81.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 82.4 |
| Identification (low) | 79.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | – | 77.8% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 77.6% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 52.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3 | 87.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.1 to 88.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 91.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.4 |
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Astra: 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-6 Astra is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI that accepts text and image input and produces text output. It is positioned as the company's flagship system for long-horizon end-to-end work spanning complex reasoning, software engineering, computer use, browsing, research and document creation. The model exposes a graduated reasoning effort control with low, medium, high, xhigh and max settings, and it accepts a change to that setting partway through a conversation rather than only at request time. It launches as a single tier with no smaller mini or nano variants, carries a context window of roughly 1.05 million tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, and reports a knowledge cutoff of April 30, 2026.
OpenAI reports evaluation results across agentic, scientific and security benchmarks, including 96.0% on GPQA Diamond, 64.6% on Terminal-Bench Science, 72.6% on OSWorld 2.0, and a perfect score on ExploitBench, along with near saturation on FrontierMath Tier 4 and ARC-AGI-3. The model supports computer use, structured outputs, streaming, programmatic tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, prompt caching and persisted reasoning, and it keeps earlier context windows searchable so it can recover requirements or tool outputs from previous turns. OpenAI describes Astra as the first of its models to cross the Critical cybersecurity capability threshold under its Preparedness Framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Astra performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 83.4% (#2 of 63) against 57.7% (#39 of 63) for Gemma 4 31B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Astra leads with 82.1% against 47.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemma 4 31B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0015 per sample against $0.034. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Astra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.9s per inference against 34.4s. 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.