Roboflow

Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Gemma 3 27B and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
GoogleGemma 3 27B
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemma 3 27B

Gemma 3 27B, announced on March 12, 2025, is the largest open-weight model in Google DeepMind’s Gemma 3 family. With around 27 billion parameters, it is multimodal—accepting both text and images as input and producing text outputs. It supports a 128,000-token context window and typically generates up to ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to process multi-page documents, extended conversations, or large batches of images in a single prompt.

The model is instruction-tuned in its “-it” variants for chat, reasoning, and summarization use cases, and it supports structured outputs and function calling. It is multilingual, covering over 140 languages. Deployment is flexible: the full BF16 model requires ~46 GB of VRAM, but quantization-aware training (QAT) versions in 8-bit or 4-bit reduce the footprint significantly, allowing more accessible use outside large-scale clusters. While it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance than smaller Gemma models, it remains lighter and more open than proprietary systems, making it well-suited for research, development, and fine-tuned applications.

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.

Gemma 3 27B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 3 27BGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2025Apr 2026
Context Window128K256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.080$0.060
Output $/1M$0.160$0.330
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
classificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Visual Understanding
Overall Score
58.21%
68.66%
Avg Response Time33.60s30.23s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens214
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001
Defect Detection
60%(9/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
77.8%(7/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
85.7%(12/14)
Spatial Understanding
63.2%(12/19)
68.4%(13/19)
OCR
Overall Score
83.84%
Avg Response Time12.05s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290
Median output tokens42
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