Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.4 Nano
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano: 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-5.4 nano is a high-throughput model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, as the efficiency-optimized entry in the GPT-5.4 family. Engineered for cost-sensitive production environments and latency-critical workloads, it features an expanded 400,000-token context window that enables the processing of large document batches or extensive logs in a single pass. The model is primarily optimized for text-heavy operations, serving as a premier engine for high-volume classification, data extraction, ranking, and the orchestration of lightweight sub-agents where speed and low per-token costs are the primary requirements.
While it supports text and image inputs, GPT-5.4 nano is designed as a text-first worker rather than a specialized visual reasoning tool. In multi-model architectures, it is best utilized for structured text tasks and simple coding sub-tasks, leaving intensive vision reasoning and UI navigation to its sibling, GPT-5.4 mini. Compared to the previous GPT-5 nano, this version provides a significant leap in reliability for structured outputs and tool calling, making it a dependable and economical choice for developers building scalable, automated pipelines that require rapid execution at the edge of the GPT-5.4 ecosystem.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.4 Nano Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 400K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | $0.200 |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | $1.25 |
| 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% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 30.23s | 3.72s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 214 | 105 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.0004 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | 62.45% |
| Avg Response Time | 12.05s | 2.59s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 105 |
| Median output tokens | 42 | 87 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | <$0.0001 | $0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 85.9%(85/99) | 55.6%(55/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | 83.3%(25/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 70%(21/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 66.7%(40/60) |
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