Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Astra
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra 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-6 Astra on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Astra scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Astra leads 87.2% to 47.7%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#42 of 53) against 86.6% (#1 of 53) for GPT-6 Astra.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.030 per sample), while GPT-6 Astra is faster (6.7s vs 27.8s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Astra Comparison Table
Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 5, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-6 Astra |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.1M |
| Parameters | 25.2B | Undisclosed |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.070 | $10.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.340 | $50.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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% | 86.6% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.030 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 6.67s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 82.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.0 to 82.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 83.6% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.5 |
| Counting (low) | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 80.2% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 81.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 82.4 |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 88.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2 | 91.9% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.1 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.5% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 76.6% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3 | 88.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 89.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 91.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 91.8 |
| Reasoning (low) | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 87.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.1 to 88.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 91.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.4 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Astra: 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-6 Astra is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI that accepts text and image input and produces text output. It is positioned as the company's flagship system for long-horizon end-to-end work spanning complex reasoning, software engineering, computer use, browsing, research and document creation. The model exposes a graduated reasoning effort control with low, medium, high, xhigh and max settings, and it accepts a change to that setting partway through a conversation rather than only at request time. It launches as a single tier with no smaller mini or nano variants, carries a context window of roughly 1.05 million tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, and reports a knowledge cutoff of April 30, 2026.
OpenAI reports evaluation results across agentic, scientific and security benchmarks, including 96.0% on GPQA Diamond, 64.6% on Terminal-Bench Science, 72.6% on OSWorld 2.0, and a perfect score on ExploitBench, along with near saturation on FrontierMath Tier 4 and ARC-AGI-3. The model supports computer use, structured outputs, streaming, programmatic tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, prompt caching and persisted reasoning, and it keeps earlier context windows searchable so it can recover requirements or tool outputs from previous turns. OpenAI describes Astra as the first of its models to cross the Critical cybersecurity capability threshold under its Preparedness Framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Astra performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 86.6% (#1 of 53) against 63.6% (#42 of 53) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Astra leads with 87.2% against 47.7%. 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 $0.030. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Astra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.7s 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.