Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.6 27B

Compare Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.6 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.6 27B 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.
QwenQwen3.6 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.6 27B: 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.

Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6-27B is a dense 27-billion-parameter multimodal language model developed by Alibaba's Qwen team and released on April 22, 2026. It combines a causal language model with an integrated vision encoder, supporting text, image, and video inputs natively. The architecture employs a hybrid attention design that interleaves Gated DeltaNet linear attention blocks with standard Gated Attention layers across 64 transformer layers with a hidden dimension of 5,120. Unlike Mixture-of-Experts variants in the Qwen3.6 family, all 27 billion parameters are active on every inference pass, simplifying deployment and quantization. The model supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible to approximately 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN scaling. It is released under the Apache 2.0 license with open weights available on Hugging Face and ModelScope.

The model introduces two notable capabilities relative to prior Qwen releases: enhanced agentic coding support covering frontend workflows and repository-level reasoning, and a Thinking Preservation mechanism that retains chain-of-thought reasoning context across multi-turn conversation history to reduce redundant token generation in iterative agent sessions. It supports both a thinking mode for multi-step reasoning and a non-thinking mode for faster responses within a single model. On coding benchmarks, Qwen reports scores of 77.2 on SWE-bench Verified, 59.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 48.2 on SkillsBench. Vision capabilities include chart understanding (CharXiv RQ: 78.4), OCR (CC-OCR: 81.2), and video understanding (VideoMME with subtitles: 87.7).

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.6 27B Comparison Table

PropertyGemma 4 31BQwen3.6 27B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Apr 2026
Context Window256K262K
Parameters31B27B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.120$0.289
Output $/1M$0.350$3.17
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
classificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Object DetectionDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
67.16%
Avg Response Time34.59s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens169
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0001
Defect Detection
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
73.7%(14/19)

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