Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-6 Luna 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 Luna 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 Luna
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

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

GPT-6 Luna scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-6 Luna leads 71.6% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 54.1% (#50 of 63) against 69.7% (#21 of 63) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6 Luna

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

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window256K1.1M
Parameters25.2BUnknown
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090$0.100
Output $/1M$0.300$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
54.1%
4/5 tasks
69.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1651.6%FP854.1%AWQ-INT452.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0004
Avg speed / sample27.84s10.21s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)–
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
Identification (low)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
OCR (low)–
59.8%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
OCR (high)–
62.5%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)–
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004

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 all 4 vision tasks and averages 69.7% (#21 of 63) against 54.1% (#50 of 63) 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 71.6% 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 10.2s 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.