Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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.
QwenQwen3.6 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.6 35B A3B scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads 65.3% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#46 of 59) against 71.9% (#23 of 59) for Qwen3.6 35B A3B.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B is both cheaper ($0.0012 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (27.1s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6 35B A3B

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6 35B A3B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Apr 2026
Context Window256K262K
Parameters25.2B35B total, 3B active
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090$0.150
Output $/1M$0.300$1.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Phrase Grounding
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks
Overall
63.6%
71.9%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
FP871.9%AWQ-INT468.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0012
Avg speed / sample27.84s27.10s
By task
Object Detection
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
57.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 56.1 to 58.7
$0
Counting
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
65.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 67.6
$0
Identification
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
82.3%
±6.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 87.5
$0
OCR
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
87.7%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.7
$0
Data Extraction
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6
$0
Reasoning
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
54.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.0 to 55.6
$0

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 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.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) multimodal language model developed by the Qwen team at Alibaba Group. It carries 35 billion total parameters but activates only approximately 3 billion per forward pass via a learned routing mechanism, giving it the representational capacity of a large dense model at a fraction of the inference compute. The model is natively multimodal, processing images, documents, and video alongside text as a core architectural capability rather than an add-on. It supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible up to 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN. A key design feature is the unified thinking/non-thinking mode framework: users can switch between deliberate chain-of-thought reasoning and fast direct responses within a single model, and a "thinking preservation" option retains reasoning context across multi-turn agentic workflows to reduce redundant computation.

The model is specifically optimized for agentic coding tasks, including repository-level reasoning, frontend workflow generation, multi-step tool use, and MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration. On SWE-bench Verified it scores 73.4%, on Terminal-Bench 2.0 it scores 51.5%, and on MCPMark it scores 37.0%. For vision-language tasks it achieves 92.0 on RefCOCO, 89.9 on OmniDocBench 1.5, and 83.7 on VideoMMMU. The model also supports Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) for speculative decoding. All Qwen3.6 open-weight models are released under the Apache 2.0 license.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.6 35B A3B performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 71.9% (#23 of 59) against 63.6% (#46 of 59) 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 35B A3B leads with 65.3% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0012 per sample against $0.0019. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 27.1s per inference against 27.8s. 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.