Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5 Nano
Compare Gemma 4 31B and GPT-5 Nano 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-5 Nano 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-5 Nano: 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-5 Nano, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient model in the GPT-5 family. Like its larger counterparts, it is multimodal—accepting text and images, supporting tool use, structured outputs, and reasoning—but it is optimized for speed, low latency, and affordability. It features input and output token limits of roughly 272K and 128K tokens respectively, enabling large-context processing even at its compact scale. Its knowledge cutoff is around May 2024, slightly earlier than the full GPT-5 model.
GPT-5 Nano is well-suited for high-volume or cost-sensitive deployments such as mobile apps, embedded AI systems, or rapid-response APIs. While it offers less depth on complex reasoning and coding tasks compared to GPT-5 Mini or Pro, it retains core multimodal and agentic capabilities, making it an attractive option where efficiency and scale matter more than maximum performance.
Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5 Nano Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 256K | 400K |
| Parameters | 31B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.120 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $0.350 | $0.400 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 34.59s | 6.58s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.8K |
| Median output tokens | 169 | 591 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 66.7%(6/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 84.72% | 69% |
| Avg Response Time | 11.82s | 6.15s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 122 |
| Median output tokens | 131 | 539 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.0002 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 86.9%(86/99) | 64.6%(64/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | 83.3%(25/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 70%(21/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 85%(51/60) | 73.3%(44/60) |
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