Side-by-side comparison
Owl Alpha vs Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
Google
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0000
Output / 1M
$0.0000
| Owl Alpha | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Openrouter | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,756 | 262,144 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | vision, tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Owl Alpha or Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)?
Owl Alpha is cheaper than Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Owl Alpha or Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)?
Owl Alpha has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 262k tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B (free). That means Owl Alpha can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Owl Alpha and Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)?
Owl Alpha comes from Openrouter; Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) comes from Google. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.