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.

Open OCR in the full playground
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.
MoonshotAIKimi K2.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5: 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.

Kimi K2.5

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

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2.5
OrganizationGoogleMoonshot AI
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Jan 2026
Context Window256K256K
Parameters25.2B1T
LicenseApache 2.0Modified MIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.060$0.375
Output $/1M$0.330$2.02
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
classificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
68.66%
35.82%
Avg Response Time30.23s14.81s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2941.6K
Median output tokens214766
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