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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano: Overview
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, 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
| Property | Gemma 3 4B | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 128K | 400K |
| Parameters | 4B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.050 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $0.100 | $0.400 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | 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 | 37.31% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 16.80s | 6.58s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.8K | |
| Median output tokens | 591 | |
| 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 Time | 0.92s | 6.15s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 300 | 122 |
| Median output tokens | 12 | 539 |
| 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