Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Sol
Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-6 Sol 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 Sol 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 Sol on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.7% to 47.5%.
Overall, Gemma 4 31B averages 57.7% (#39 of 63) against 76.9% (#12 of 63) for GPT-6 Sol.
Gemma 4 31B is cheaper ($0.0015 vs $0.0074 per sample), while GPT-6 Sol is faster (10.2s vs 34.4s per sample).
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $0.090 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.340 | $10.00 |
| 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 | 76.9% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0015 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 34.36s | 10.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 47.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0 | 74.7% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 76.4% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 77.4 |
| Counting (low) | 51.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0 | 76.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 77.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Identification (low) | 79.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | – | 66.7% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 68.8% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 52.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3 | 72.6% ±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.5 to 76.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 77.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 78.8 |
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-6 Sol: 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 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.
The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#12 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 Sol leads with 74.7% 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 $0.0074. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Sol 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.