Roboflow

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Compare Gemma 4 31B 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 31B 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 31B
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 31B 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 62.2% to 52.7%.

Overall, Gemma 4 31B averages 67.1% (#29 of 52) against 70.3% (#24 of 52) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.

Gemma 4 31B is cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0015 per sample), while Qwen3.5 35B A3B is faster (29.3s vs 29.7s per sample).

Gemma 4 31BQwen3.5 35B A3B

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 4, 2026

PropertyGemma 4 31BQwen3.5 35B A3B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Feb 2026
Context Window256K262K
Parameters31B35B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090$0.250
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
67.1%
70.3%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1665.3%FP865.1%QAT-W4A1667.1%hardware →
FP869.0%GPTQ-INT470.3%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0011$0.0015
Avg speed / sample29.72s29.34s
By task
Object Detection
48.0%
$0
55.9%
$0
Counting
52.7%
$0
62.2%
$0
Identification
84.4%
$0
81.3%
$0
OCR
85.6%
$0
83.2%
$0
Data Extraction
82.7%
$0
84.7%
$0
Reasoning
49.0%
$0
54.3%
$0

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview

Gemma 4 31B

Gemma 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.

For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.

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 70.3% (#24 of 52) against 67.1% (#29 of 52) for Gemma 4 31B. 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 62.2% against 52.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 31B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0011 per sample against $0.0015. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 29.3s per inference against 29.7s. 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.