Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 78.8% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 54.1% (#50 of 63) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0045 per sample), while Gemini 3.8 Flash is faster (12.8s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
ParametersUnknown25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.825$0.068
Output $/1M$4.13$0.225
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
79.8%
54.1%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1651.6%FP854.1%AWQ-INT452.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0045$0.0019
Avg speed / sample12.76s27.84s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0045
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Object Detection (high)
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.023
–
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0040
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.027
–
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0016
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
$0.0037
–
OCR (low)
72.8%
$0.0049
–
by category
Single value
73.5%
Transcription
91.3%
Structured JSON
86.1%
Text localization
26.4%
OCR (high)
78.7%
$0.039
–
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
94.1%
Structured JSON
90.9%
Text localization
58.6%
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0038
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.023
–

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

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 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 54.1% (#50 of 63) 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 3.8 Flash leads with 78.8% 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 $0.0045. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.8s 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.