Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

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

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

PropertyGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.250$0.060
Output $/1M$1.50$0.330
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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 Time1.86s30.23s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens1.1K294
Median output tokens6214
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 Time1.32s12.05s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens1.1K290
Median output tokens1042
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