Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5: 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.
Kimi K2.5 is a frontier-scale multimodal AI model developed by Moonshot AI and released on January 27, 2026. As a significant advancement within the Kimi K2 family, it utilizes a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 1 trillion total parameters (32 billion active per inference) and a massive 256K-token context window. The model features native multimodal integration via a 400M-parameter MoonViT encoder, allowing it to process text, images, and video frames simultaneously. Built for both speed and depth, it offers "Instant" and "Thinking" modes, the latter of which excels at expert-level reasoning, scoring 50.2% on the Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE) benchmark when equipped with tools.
The model is released under a Modified MIT License, which remains open-weight but requires attribution for high-revenue commercial entities. It introduces an "Agent Swarm" paradigm capable of coordinating up to 100 specialized sub-agents for parallel workflows, significantly reducing latency in complex research tasks. For vision tasks, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong autonomous visual debugging capabilities, where it can inspect its own generated UI outputs against visual specifications to iteratively refine frontend code. This makes it a powerful choice for developers testing automated UI reconstruction, high-fidelity OCR document processing, and multi-step agentic research grounded in complex visual data.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Moonshot AI | |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Jan 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | 1T |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | $0.375 |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | $2.02 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 35.82% |
| Avg Response Time | 30.23s | 14.81s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.6K |
| Median output tokens | 214 | 766 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.0021 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 46.7%(7/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology