Gemma 4 31B vs Grok 3

We ran our 12-test suite and compare each metric below (scores are our 1–5 ratings and ranks are from our leaderboard):

• Tool calling: Gemma 4 31B 5 vs Grok 3 4 — Gemma wins; Gemma is tied for 1st (tied with 16 others) while Grok ranks 18 of 54. This implies Gemma is measurably better at function selection, argument accuracy and sequencing in our tests.
• Creative problem solving: Gemma 4 vs Grok 3 — Gemma wins; Gemma ranks 9 of 54 (21 models share score) vs Grok rank 30. Expect more specific, non‑obvious feasible ideas from Gemma in our tasks.
• Constrained rewriting: Gemma 4 vs Grok 3 — Gemma wins; Gemma ranks 6 of 53 while Grok ranks 31. Gemma handled tight compression/limits better in our tests.
• Long context: Gemma 4 vs Grok 3 5 — Grok wins; Grok is tied for 1st (with 36 others) while Gemma is 38 of 55. For retrieval/accuracy at 30K+ tokens, Grok performed best in our benchmark.
• Structured output: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st (Gemma tied with 24 others). JSON/schema compliance was equally strong in our tests.
• Strategic analysis: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st. Nuanced tradeoff reasoning performed at top levels for both models.
• Faithfulness: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st. Both models adhered to source material in our tests.
• Classification: tie, both 4 — both tied for 1st. Accurate categorization/routing was equivalent in our runs.
• Safety calibration: tie, both 2 — both rank 12 of 55. Both models showed similar refusal/allow behavior in our safety probes.
• Persona consistency: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st. Character maintenance was equally strong.
• Agentic planning: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st. Goal decomposition and recovery were top-ranked for both.
• Multilingual: tie, both 5 — both tied for 1st. Equivalent non‑English quality in our tests. Context & modality notes from the payload: Gemma 4 31B offers a 262,144 token context window and multimodal input (text+image+video→text); Grok 3 has a 131,072 token window and text→text modality. Despite Gemma’s larger context window, Grok scored higher on our long context benchmark. Across the 12 tests Gemma wins 3, Grok wins 1, and 8 are ties — all statements above are from our testing.

Raw per‑1k-token pricing from the payload: Gemma 4 31B charges $0.13 (input) / $0.38 (output) per mTok; Grok 3 charges $3 (input) / $15 (output) per mTok. Example, using a 50/50 input/output split as a simple illustration: for 1M tokens/month Gemma ≈ $255 (500 units × $0.13 + 500 × $0.38) vs Grok ≈ $9,000 (500 × $3 + 500 × $15). At 10M tokens/month Gemma ≈ $2,550 vs Grok ≈ $90,000; at 100M tokens/month Gemma ≈ $25,500 vs Grok ≈ $900,000. High‑volume API customers, startups, or any product with >1M tokens/month should care: Grok 3’s premium pricing scales into six‑figure monthly bills quickly, while Gemma offers similar or better performance on most benchmarks at a small fraction of the cost.

Choose Gemma 4 31B if: you need multimodal inputs (text+image+video→text), best-in-class tool calling and constrained rewriting per our tests, or you operate at scale and want dramatically lower cost (Gemma’s per‑mTok rates are $0.13/$0.38 vs Grok’s $3/$15). Choose Grok 3 if: you need the top long context performance in our suite (long context 5 vs 4) or you prioritize the vendor’s stated strengths for coding/data extraction despite a much higher per-token bill.