Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
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 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | $0.060 |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | $0.330 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | 30.23s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 6 | 214 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0001 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | 83.84% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | 12.05s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 10 | 42 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | <$0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | 85.9%(85/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 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