PaddleOCR VL 1.5 vs Gemma 4 E2B

At a Glance

Compare
Gemma 4 E2BGoogle DeepMind
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131K131K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 3, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldPaddleOCR-VL-1.5Gemma 4 E2B
DeveloperBaiduGoogle DeepMind
FamilyPaddleocr VL 1 5Gemma 4
ModelPaddleOCR-VL-1.5Gemma 4 E2B
VersionPaddleOCR-VL-1.5Gemma 4 E2B
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-01-292026-03-02
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video, Audio
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K131K
Total parameters958.6MUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0apache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableUnknownYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessUnknownTogether Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generationchat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

PaddleOCR VL 1.5 Capabilities

chatgeneration
Serving providers0
Canonical IDPaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR-VL-1.5

Gemma 4 E2B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDgoogle/gemma-4-E2B-it

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

PaddleOCR VL 1.5 vs Gemma 4 E2B FAQs

Is PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both PaddleOCR VL 1.5 and Gemma 4 E2B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.

Which has a larger context window, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. PaddleOCR VL 1.5 is 131K and Gemma 4 E2B is 131K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. PaddleOCR VL 1.5 is open weight; Gemma 4 E2B is open weight.

Can PaddleOCR VL 1.5 and Gemma 4 E2B understand images?+

PaddleOCR VL 1.5 is documented with image input; Gemma 4 E2B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. PaddleOCR VL 1.5 is — and Gemma 4 E2B is —.

Do PaddleOCR VL 1.5 and Gemma 4 E2B support reasoning and tool use?+

PaddleOCR VL 1.5: image input. Gemma 4 E2B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

PaddleOCR VL 1.5 has 0 sourced provider routes; Gemma 4 E2B has 1, so Gemma 4 E2B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, PaddleOCR VL 1.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback