Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B 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 Qwen3.6 27B on Vision Evals
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 67.1% to 43.2%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#49 of 61) against 73.6% (#26 of 61) for Qwen3.6 27B.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is both cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0021 per sample) and faster (27.8s vs 42.1s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 262K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | 27B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.090 | $0.300 |
| Output $/1M | $0.300 | $2.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Not listed |
| Video Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks | ||
| Overall | 63.6% | 73.6% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.0021 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 42.09s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 59.7% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.0 to 60.8 |
| Counting | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 67.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 71.6 |
| Identification | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 82.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| OCR | 88.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2 | 88.5% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.7 to 90.6 |
| Data Extraction | 76.6% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3 | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6 |
| Reasoning | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 59.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.6 to 60.9 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B: 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.
Qwen3.6-27B is a dense 27-billion-parameter multimodal language model developed by Alibaba's Qwen team and released on April 22, 2026. It combines a causal language model with an integrated vision encoder, supporting text, image, and video inputs natively. The architecture employs a hybrid attention design that interleaves Gated DeltaNet linear attention blocks with standard Gated Attention layers across 64 transformer layers with a hidden dimension of 5,120. Unlike Mixture-of-Experts variants in the Qwen3.6 family, all 27 billion parameters are active on every inference pass, simplifying deployment and quantization. The model supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible to approximately 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN scaling. It is released under the Apache 2.0 license with open weights available on Hugging Face and ModelScope.
The model introduces two notable capabilities relative to prior Qwen releases: enhanced agentic coding support covering frontend workflows and repository-level reasoning, and a Thinking Preservation mechanism that retains chain-of-thought reasoning context across multi-turn conversation history to reduce redundant token generation in iterative agent sessions. It supports both a thinking mode for multi-step reasoning and a non-thinking mode for faster responses within a single model. On coding benchmarks, Qwen reports scores of 77.2 on SWE-bench Verified, 59.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 48.2 on SkillsBench. Vision capabilities include chart understanding (CharXiv RQ: 78.4), OCR (CC-OCR: 81.2), and video understanding (VideoMME with subtitles: 87.7).
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.6 27B performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 73.6% (#26 of 61) against 63.6% (#49 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, Qwen3.6 27B leads with 67.1% 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 $0.0021. 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 42.1s. 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.