Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.6

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Grok 4.6 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 Grok 4.6 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.
GrokGrok 4.6
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Grok 4.6 leads 65.8% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#48 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0097 per sample), while Grok 4.6 is faster (17.5s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BGrok 4.6

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGrok 4.6
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window256K500K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.076$2.00
Output $/1M$0.255$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
68.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0097
Avg speed / sample27.84s17.55s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
23.8%
±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9
$0.013
Object Detection (high)–
24.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1
$0.041
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
65.8%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3
$0.0079
Counting (high)–
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0.027
Identification (low)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
84.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0055
Identification (high)–
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.015
OCR (low)
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1
$0.0091
OCR (high)–
91.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7
$0.023
Data Extraction (low)
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0050
Data Extraction (high)–
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0090
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
61.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3
$0.0093
Reasoning (high)–
63.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2
$0.032

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.6: 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.

Grok 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.7% (#33 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.6 leads with 65.8% against 43.2%. 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 $0.0097. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 17.5s 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.