Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Gemma 4 31B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B 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
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B on Vision Evals
Gemma 4 31B scores higher on 3 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Gemma 4 31B leads 51.4% to 43.2%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 54.1% (#50 of 63) against 57.7% (#39 of 63) for Gemma 4 31B.
Gemma 4 31B is cheaper ($0.0015 vs $0.0019 per sample), while Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster (27.8s vs 34.4s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 14, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | 31B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.090 | $0.090 |
| Output $/1M | $0.300 | $0.340 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks | ||
| Overall | 54.1% 4/5 tasks | 57.7% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.0015 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 34.36s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 47.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0 |
| Counting | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 51.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0 |
| Identification | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 79.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR | – | – |
| by category | ||
| Reasoning | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 52.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B: Overview
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 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.
For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemma 4 31B performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the 4 vision tasks and averages 57.7% (#39 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.
No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Gemma 4 31B leads with 51.4% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemma 4 31B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0015 per sample against $0.0019. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 27.8s per inference against 34.4s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.