Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6.1 Sol

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-6.1 Sol 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-6.1 Sol 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.
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6.1 Sol on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 44.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#48 of 61) against 85.5% (#4 of 61) for GPT-6.1 Sol.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0061 per sample), while GPT-6.1 Sol is faster (14.3s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6.1 Sol

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6.1 Sol
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window256K1.1M
Parameters25.2Bundisclosed
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.076$2.00
Output $/1M$0.255$10.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
63.6%
85.5%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0061
Avg speed / sample27.84s14.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
Object Detection (high)–
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
Counting (high)–
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
Identification (low)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
Identification (high)–
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
OCR (low)
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
OCR (high)–
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
Data Extraction (low)
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
Data Extraction (high)–
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
Reasoning (high)–
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6.1 Sol: 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.

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 63.6% (#48 of 61) for Gemma 4 26B A4B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% against 44.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0019 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6.1 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 14.3s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.