Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemma 4 26B A4B scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemma 4 26B A4B leads 47.7% to 34.4%.
Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#42 of 53) against 61.5% (#45 of 53) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 27.8s per sample).
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 11, 2026
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.042 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $0.220 | $0.130 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.6% | 61.5% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0019 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 27.84s | 6.28s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 44.2% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8 | 42.8% |
| Counting | 43.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0 | 46.0% |
| Identification | 81.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 | 84.4% |
| OCR | 88.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2 | 84.1% |
| Data Extraction | 76.6% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3 | 77.3% |
| Reasoning (low) | 47.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0 | 34.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 61.6% |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemma 4 26B A4B performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#42 of 53) against 61.5% (#45 of 53) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemma 4 26B A4B leads with 47.7% against 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0019. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.