Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Gemini 3 Pro and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, OCR, Image Captioning, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 3 Pro 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
Gemini 3 Pro is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview
Gemini 3 Pro is Google DeepMind’s flagship multimodal frontier model, built for high-accuracy reasoning and large-scale context understanding across text, images, audio, video, code, and documents. It delivers major gains over Gemini 2.5 Pro, supported by a 1M-token window and strong performance on Google-reported benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond, MMMU-Pro, and Video-MMMU.
The model excels at structured outputs, tool use, and agentic coding, enabling complex multi-step workflows and analysis of entire books, codebases, or long videos in a single prompt. Positioned as Google’s top production model, it balances advanced reasoning with broad multimodal capabilities, making it well suited for research assistants, automation agents, coding systems, and enterprise-scale document and media analysis.
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 Pro vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Pro | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 | 68.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 30.23s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 214 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | |
| Avg Response Time | 12.05s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 42 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | <$0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 85.9%(85/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 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