Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 31B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B: Overview

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 4 31B

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.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGemma 4 31B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Apr 2026
Context Window256K256K
Parameters25.2B31B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.120
Output $/1M$0.300$0.370
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
classificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Visual Understanding
Overall Score
68.66%
67.16%
Avg Response Time30.23s34.59s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294294
Median output tokens214169
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001$0.0001
Defect Detection
80%(12/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
85.7%(12/14)
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
68.4%(13/19)
73.7%(14/19)
OCR
Overall Score
83.84%
84.72%
Avg Response Time12.05s11.82s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290290
Median output tokens42131
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark<$0.0001$0.0001
Focused Scene OCR
85.9%(85/99)
86.9%(86/99)
Handwritten Math
50%(5/10)
50%(5/10)
License Plate Recognition
93.3%(28/30)
93.3%(28/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
80%(24/30)
VQA & Extraction
83.3%(50/60)
85%(51/60)

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