Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google Vision OCR
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Google Vision OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google Vision OCR 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google Vision OCR: 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.
Google Vision OCR, released as part of the Cloud Vision API’s general availability in February 2016, is a proprietary Google Cloud service for extracting text from images and documents. It supports common formats like JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, and PDF, and provides two main modes: TEXT_DETECTION for short snippets and scene text, and DOCUMENT_TEXT_DETECTION for dense documents, which returns structured layout information with bounding boxes.
While not an LLM (so it has no token context window or parameter count), the service performs OCR across printed text and some handwriting. It outputs detected text along with positional metadata, making it useful for digitizing scanned files, receipts, forms, and signs. However, complex layouts like tables often require downstream processing. Accessible via REST and RPC APIs, with client libraries in major languages, Google Vision OCR is widely used for document processing pipelines, archival, and accessibility applications.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google Vision OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Google Vision OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | vision |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Feb 2016 |
| Context Window | 256K | — |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
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