Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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.
QwenQwen3.5 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.5 35B A3B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads 62.6% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#42 of 53) against 69.4% (#26 of 53) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0019 per sample), while Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster (27.8s vs 31.9s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.5 35B A3B

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 8, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.5 35B A3B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Feb 2026
Context Window256K262K
Parameters25.2B35B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.070$0.313
Output $/1M$0.340$1.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks
Overall
63.6%
69.4%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.8%FP863.6%AWQ-INT460.0%hardware →
FP869.0%GPTQ-INT469.4%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0016
Avg speed / sample27.84s31.88s
By task
Object Detection
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
52.9%
±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9
$0
Counting
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
62.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0
Identification
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
OCR
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
83.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.7 to 83.5
$0
Data Extraction
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
83.5%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 85.6
$0
Reasoning
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
54.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3
$0

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B

The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.

Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5 35B A3B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.4% (#26 of 53) against 63.6% (#42 of 53) 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, Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads with 62.6% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0019. 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 31.9s. 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.