PaliGemma vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Compare PaliGemma and Qwen3.5 122B A10B side-by-side.
Compare PaliGemma vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
PaliGemma vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B: Overview
PaliGemma is a vision-language model released in May 2024 by Google, built by pairing the SigLIP-So400m vision encoder with the Gemma 2B language model. It is designed primarily as a compact, transfer-friendly base model for fine-tuning to downstream vision-language tasks, rather than as a chat-optimized assistant. PaliGemma draws architectural inspiration from the PaLI-3 model at Google Research, applying a similar encoder-decoder approach at a smaller and more accessible parameter scale.
PaliGemma accepts an image together with a text prompt and generates text output, supporting image captioning, visual question answering, optical character recognition, object detection, referring expression segmentation, and a range of related vision-language tasks when fine-tuned on task-specific data. The model is released at three input resolutions (224, 448, and 896 pixels), with higher resolutions providing stronger performance on tasks requiring fine visual detail such as OCR and document understanding. Google released pretrained (PT) checkpoints intended as fine-tuning bases, along with Mix variants that have been fine-tuned on a mixture of downstream tasks for direct use without additional training. PaliGemma is distributed under the Gemma license, a custom license from Google that permits commercial use subject to the terms of the Gemma Prohibited Use Policy. It was succeeded by PaliGemma 2 in December 2024, which extends the architecture to larger Gemma 2 language backbones at 3B, 10B, and 28B parameter sizes.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is a high-capacity multimodal Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model developed by Alibaba’s Qwen team as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. The architecture contains 122 billion total parameters while activating roughly 10 billion per token through sparse expert routing, allowing the model to balance large-scale reasoning ability with relatively efficient inference compared to dense models of similar size.
The model is designed to process both text and visual inputs within a unified multimodal framework, enabling tasks that require reasoning across images, documents, charts, and natural language. This makes it suitable for applications such as document understanding, diagram interpretation, and complex visual question answering.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B supports a native context window of approximately 256,000 tokens, which can be extended further through techniques such as YaRN scaling to support very long-context workloads. Released under the Apache 2.0 license, it builds on earlier Qwen multimodal systems and provides developers with an open-weight model capable of handling demanding multimodal reasoning and analysis tasks.
PaliGemma vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B Comparison Table
| Property | PaliGemma | Qwen3.5 122B A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2024 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 256K |
| Parameters | 3B | 122B |
| License | Custom | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.260 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.08 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 76.12% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.77s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| 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