Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5 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
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5: Overview
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.
GPT-5, released by OpenAI in August 2025, is a multimodal large language model that advances beyond the GPT-4 family with a new “unified system” architecture. This design allows the model to dynamically choose between fast responses and extended reasoning depending on task complexity. It supports text, code, and images, alongside stronger tool use and agentic workflows, making it more adaptable for real-world problem solving. While its exact context window size is not disclosed, GPT-5 is optimized for long-horizon reasoning and multi-step tool chaining, indicating substantially expanded capacity over its predecessors.
The release introduced specialized variants: GPT-5 Pro, offering extended reasoning for complex workflows, and GPT-5 Codex, optimized for advanced coding tasks such as large-scale refactoring and code review. GPT-5 shows benchmark gains in coding, biomedical reasoning, multimodal analysis, and scientific tasks. Developers also gain new controls, such as verbosity and personalization parameters, for greater steerability. With these improvements, GPT-5 positions itself as OpenAI’s most capable and versatile model, suited for enterprise automation, research, healthcare, and sophisticated coding environments.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 256K | — |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | $10.00 |
| 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% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 30.23s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 214 | |
| 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 | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | |
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