Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano

Compare Gemma 3 4B and GPT-5 Nano side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano 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 3 4B
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-5 Nano
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano: Overview

Gemma 3 4B

Gemma 3 4B, released on March 12, 2025, is the mid-sized member of Google DeepMind’s open-weight Gemma 3 family. With about 4 billion parameters, it is multimodal—supporting text and image inputs and generating text outputs. Like the larger Gemma 3 models, it features a 128,000-token input context window with an output capacity of ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to handle long documents and mixed text–image reasoning tasks.

The 4B variant is designed as a balance between efficiency and capability: it offers multilingual support across 140+ languages, strong summarization and reasoning performance, and compatibility with moderate hardware. Inference can run with ~6.4 GB VRAM in BF16, or significantly less in quantized 8-bit (~4.4 GB) or 4-bit (~3.4 GB) modes, making it accessible to developers outside large-scale infrastructure. While it lags behind the 12B and 27B versions on the most complex reasoning and multimodal benchmarks, its lower compute footprint makes it ideal for research, prototyping, and practical deployment where efficiency matters.

GPT-5 Nano

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 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 3 4BGPT-5 Nano
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2025Aug 2025
Context Window128K400K
Parameters4B
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.050$0.050
Output $/1M$0.100$0.400
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
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
37.31%
58.21%
Avg Response Time16.80s6.58s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens1.8K
Median output tokens591
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0003
Defect Detection
60%(9/15)
86.7%(13/15)
Document Understanding
55.6%(5/9)
66.7%(6/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
0%(0/10)
Object Understanding
42.9%(6/14)
64.3%(9/14)
Spatial Understanding
26.3%(5/19)
57.9%(11/19)
OCR
Overall Score
64.19%
69%
Avg Response Time0.92s6.15s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens300122
Median output tokens12539
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0000$0.0002
Focused Scene OCR
63.6%(63/99)
64.6%(64/99)
Handwritten Math
10%(1/10)
40%(4/10)
License Plate Recognition
86.7%(26/30)
83.3%(25/30)
Text Recognition
73.3%(22/30)
70%(21/30)
VQA & Extraction
58.3%(35/60)
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