Roboflow

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-6 Luna 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 Luna 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-6 Luna
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Luna scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-6 Luna leads 71.6% to 51.4%.

Overall, Gemma 4 31B averages 57.7% (#39 of 63) against 69.7% (#21 of 63) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0015 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 34.4s per sample).

Gemma 4 31BGPT-6 Luna

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 31BGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window256K1.1M
Parameters31BUnknown
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090$0.100
Output $/1M$0.340$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
57.7%
4/5 tasks
69.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1657.7%FP857.7%QAT-W4A1657.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0015$0.0004
Avg speed / sample34.36s10.21s
By task
Object Detection (low)
47.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0
$0
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)–
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
Counting (low)
51.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0
$0
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
Identification (low)
79.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
OCR (low)–
59.8%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
OCR (high)–
62.5%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Reasoning (low)
52.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3
$0
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)–
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004

Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Luna: 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-6 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.

The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 69.7% (#21 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 71.6% against 51.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0015. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.2s 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.