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: 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.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table
| 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 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.120 |
| Output $/1M | $0.300 | $0.370 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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 Time | 30.23s | 34.59s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 214 | 169 |
| 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 Time | 12.05s | 11.82s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 42 | 131 |
| 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