Roboflow

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B 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.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 64.9% to 43.2%.

Overall, Gemma 4 26B A4B averages 63.6% (#48 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0019 per sample) and faster (18.0s vs 27.8s per sample).

Gemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.8 27B

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Aug 2026
Context Window256K262K
Parameters25.2B27.78B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.076$0.025
Output $/1M$0.255$4.35
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0019$0.0009
Avg speed / sample27.84s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)–
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)–
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)–
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)–
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)–
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)–
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#22 of 61) against 63.6% (#48 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, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 64.9% against 43.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0019. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 18.0s 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.