Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.1
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-5.1 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 GPT-5.1 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 GPT-5.1: 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.
GPT-5.1 is an OpenAI frontier-grade model in the GPT-5 series, offering stronger general-purpose reasoning, clearer long-form responses, and improved instruction following. It introduces two variants—Instant and Thinking—that dynamically adjust computational depth. Instant focuses on fast, conversational replies, while Thinking provides deeper, more thorough reasoning for complex tasks. In ChatGPT, GPT-5.1 also powers an Auto mode that switches between these variants automatically based on task difficulty.
The model supports significantly expanded context windows: up to 16K/32K/128K tokens for Instant (depending on tier) and up to 196K tokens for Thinking on paid tiers. GPT-5.1 is also compatible with ChatGPT tools such as web search, file and image analysis, and multi-step workflows.
GPT-5.1 includes enhanced tone and style controls, allowing responses to be tailored using presets like Friendly, Professional, or Efficient, along with fine-grained adjustments for warmth, brevity, and emoji usage. Designed for broad applications in research assistance, coding, analysis, and conversational agents, GPT-5.1 serves as OpenAI’s primary full-capability successor to GPT-5 across ChatGPT and API integrations.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.1 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 256K | 196K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | $10.00 |
| 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 | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| 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) | |
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