GoogleGemma 4 31BVSOpenAIGPT-5.4 nano
Our Take
We recommend Gemma 4 31B for zero-cost private inference on your own hardware, or GPT-5.4 nano if you need instant cloud scaling without managing compute. Choose Gemma 4 31B for offline data control and scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions, or GPT-5.4 nano for complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Gemma 4 31B scores 84.3% on reasoning, while GPT-5.4 nano scores 82.8%.
Coding Performance: Evaluated on different benchmarks. Gemma 4 31B scored 80% on LiveCodeBench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while GPT-5.4 nano scored 52.4% on SWE-bench Pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning).
Context Window: GPT-5.4 nano supports 400k, while Gemma 4 31B supports 262k.
Hosting Model: Gemma 4 31B runs locally for $0 API costs, while GPT-5.4 nano is a cloud API.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
80%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.5%)
84.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
52.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
82.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25Context WindowLarger
400k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemma 4 31B vs GPT-5.4 nano
For coding tasks, Gemma 4 31B scores 80% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while GPT-5.4 nano scores 52.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemma 4 31B and GPT-5.4 nano.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.