Roboflow

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 4 Scout

Compare Gemma 4 31B and Llama 4 Scout side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 4 Scout live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
GoogleGemma 4 31B
Run to compare this model.
MetaLlama 4 Scout
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 4 Scout: 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.

Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout, released on April 5, 2025, is one of Meta AI’s first Llama 4 multimodal models, alongside Maverick. It accepts text + image inputs and produces text outputs, with a knowledge cutoff of August 2024. Scout is notable for its extremely large context window of 10 million tokens, making it well-suited for analyzing very long documents, extended conversations, or large codebases.

Architecturally, Scout uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system with 16 experts, activating ~17B parameters per inference from a pool of ~109B total parameters, balancing capacity with efficiency. It officially supports 12 languages (including English, Arabic, French, Hindi, and Spanish), while offering multimodal reasoning for images (captioning, Q&A, recognition). Meta highlights that Scout can run on a single Nvidia H100 GPU, making it more accessible than larger-scale Llama 4 models. However, its output token limit is far smaller than its 10M input window, image input support is still constrained, and license restrictions apply for large-scale commercial deployments.

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 4 Scout Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 4 31BLlama 4 Scout
OrganizationGoogleMeta
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Apr 2025
Context Window256K10.0M
Parameters31B109B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.120$0.100
Output $/1M$0.350$0.300
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
classificationDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Visual Understanding
Overall Score
67.16%
67.16%
Avg Response Time34.59s43.93s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens169
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001
Defect Detection
80%(12/15)
73.3%(11/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
20%(2/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
73.7%(14/19)
73.7%(14/19)
OCR
Overall Score
84.72%
70.74%
Avg Response Time11.82s0.74s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290472
Median output tokens13112
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001$0.0001
Focused Scene OCR
86.9%(86/99)
56.6%(56/99)
Handwritten Math
50%(5/10)
70%(7/10)
License Plate Recognition
93.3%(28/30)
93.3%(28/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
80%(24/30)
VQA & Extraction
85%(51/60)
78.3%(47/60)

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