Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.

For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.060
Output $/1M$2.50$0.330
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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
55.22%
68.66%
Avg Response Time24.91s30.23s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294294
Median output tokens171214
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0005$0.0001
Defect Detection
60%(9/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
85.7%(12/14)
Spatial Understanding
52.6%(10/19)
68.4%(13/19)
OCR
Overall Score
79.04%
83.84%
Avg Response Time2.39s12.05s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290290
Median output tokens8142
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0003$0.0000
Focused Scene OCR
79.8%(79/99)
85.9%(85/99)
Handwritten Math
80%(8/10)
50%(5/10)
License Plate Recognition
90%(27/30)
93.3%(28/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
80%(24/30)
VQA & Extraction
71.7%(43/60)
83.3%(50/60)

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