Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 4B
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemma 3 4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 4B 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 4B: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
Gemma 3 4B, released on March 12, 2025, is the mid-sized member of Google DeepMind’s open-weight Gemma 3 family. With about 4 billion parameters, it is multimodal—supporting text and image inputs and generating text outputs. Like the larger Gemma 3 models, it features a 128,000-token input context window with an output capacity of ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to handle long documents and mixed text–image reasoning tasks.
The 4B variant is designed as a balance between efficiency and capability: it offers multilingual support across 140+ languages, strong summarization and reasoning performance, and compatibility with moderate hardware. Inference can run with ~6.4 GB VRAM in BF16, or significantly less in quantized 8-bit (~4.4 GB) or 4-bit (~3.4 GB) modes, making it accessible to developers outside large-scale infrastructure. While it lags behind the 12B and 27B versions on the most complex reasoning and multimodal benchmarks, its lower compute footprint makes it ideal for research, prototyping, and practical deployment where efficiency matters.
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 4B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Gemma 3 4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | 4B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $0.100 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 79.1% | 37.31% |
| Avg Response Time | 6.71s | 16.80s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 294 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0043 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 60%(6/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
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