Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
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.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.060 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $0.330 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 55.22% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | 30.23s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 171 | 214 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | $0.0001 |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 79.04% | 83.84% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.39s | 12.05s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 81 | 42 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0000 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 79.8%(79/99) | 85.9%(85/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 71.7%(43/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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