Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.7

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.7 scores higher on 3 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Grok 4.7 leads 61.7% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 54.1% (#50 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is both cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (27.8s vs 33.3s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BGrok 4.7

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BGrok 4.7
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateApr 2026Sep 2026
Context Window256K500K
Parameters25.2BUnknown
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.068$2.00
Output $/1M$0.225$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
54.1%
4/5 tasks
63.5%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1651.6%FP854.1%AWQ-INT452.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.020
Avg speed / sample27.84s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)–
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)–
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
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
$0.0063
Identification (high)–
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR–
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)–
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.7: 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 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the 4 vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#31 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, Grok 4.7 leads with 61.7% 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 $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 27.8s per inference against 33.3s. 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.