Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Luna scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-6 Luna leads 65.8% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#46 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6 Luna

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window256K1.1M
Parameters25.2B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090
Output $/1M$0.300
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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%
68.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.8%FP863.6%AWQ-INT460.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0004
Avg speed / sample27.84s11.27s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
Identification (low)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
OCR (low)
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
Data Extraction (low)
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna: 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 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.

The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 63.6% (#46 of 57) 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 65.8% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0019. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.3s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.