Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.5 397B A17B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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 31B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B: Overview
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.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is a 397B-parameter (17B active) open-weight multimodal model developed by Alibaba’s Qwen team, released on 2026-02-16 under Apache-2.0. It supports text and image inputs with text outputs, combining a sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with Gated Delta Networks for efficient scaling. The model provides native vision-language reasoning and a large ~262K token context window, extendable to ~1M tokens.
As the first open-weight release in the Qwen3.5 family, it positions itself as a high-capacity, long-context alternative in the large vision-language space, balancing scale and efficiency via sparse activation. It is designed for advanced reasoning, coding, agent workflows, and multimodal understanding tasks.
Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 262K |
| Parameters | 31B | 397B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.120 | $0.385 |
| Output $/1M | $0.350 | $2.45 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| classification | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 34.59s | 56.61s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 169 | 54 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.0006 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 66.7%(10/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology