Gemma 4 31B vs PaliGemma
Compare Gemma 4 31B and PaliGemma side-by-side.
Compare Gemma 4 31B vs PaliGemma live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs PaliGemma: 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.
PaliGemma is a vision-language model released in May 2024 by Google, built by pairing the SigLIP-So400m vision encoder with the Gemma 2B language model. It is designed primarily as a compact, transfer-friendly base model for fine-tuning to downstream vision-language tasks, rather than as a chat-optimized assistant. PaliGemma draws architectural inspiration from the PaLI-3 model at Google Research, applying a similar encoder-decoder approach at a smaller and more accessible parameter scale.
PaliGemma accepts an image together with a text prompt and generates text output, supporting image captioning, visual question answering, optical character recognition, object detection, referring expression segmentation, and a range of related vision-language tasks when fine-tuned on task-specific data. The model is released at three input resolutions (224, 448, and 896 pixels), with higher resolutions providing stronger performance on tasks requiring fine visual detail such as OCR and document understanding. Google released pretrained (PT) checkpoints intended as fine-tuning bases, along with Mix variants that have been fine-tuned on a mixture of downstream tasks for direct use without additional training. PaliGemma is distributed under the Gemma license, a custom license from Google that permits commercial use subject to the terms of the Gemma Prohibited Use Policy. It was succeeded by PaliGemma 2 in December 2024, which extends the architecture to larger Gemma 2 language backbones at 3B, 10B, and 28B parameter sizes.
Gemma 4 31B vs PaliGemma Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | PaliGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | May 2024 |
| Context Window | 256K | — |
| Parameters | 31B | 3B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.120 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.350 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | |
| Avg Response Time | 34.59s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 169 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
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