Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 78.4% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#6 of 61) against 63.6% (#48 of 61) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0031 per sample), while Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster (16.5s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
ParametersUndisclosed25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.076
Output $/1M$3.75$0.255
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.2%
63.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0019
Avg speed / sample16.50s27.84s
By task
Object Detection (low)
71.0%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.8 to 71.6
$0.0047
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Object Detection (high)
74.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.6 to 75.0
$0.0089
–
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
–
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
–
OCR (low)
88.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0
$0.0027
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
OCR (high)
89.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9
$0.0093
–
Data Extraction (low)
96.2%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
Data Extraction (high)
95.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9
$0.0023
–
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
–

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#6 of 61) against 63.6% (#48 of 61) for Gemma 4 26B A4B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 78.4% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0019 per sample against $0.0031. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 16.5s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.