Gemma 4 12B vs Ministral 14B: Who Wins at Structured Table Extraction?

Head-to-head test: Gemma 4 12B vs Ministral 14B on structured table extraction.

In this video, I run a head-to-head test: Gemma 4 12B (8-bit and bf16) vs Ministral 14B (8-bit), extracting data from a 5-row table — two columns, JSON schema, array output.

Results:

• Gemma 4 12B (both quantizations): fails to return a proper JSON array
• Ministral 14B 8-bit: extracts all rows correctly

Building Agentic AI Pipelines for Document Analysis

In this video, I show how to build a local agentic AI pipeline using Sparrow to extract and analyze data from financial documents. 

 The agent runs two steps: 

- Extract structured data from a bonds table image using Sparrow Parse pipeline and Ministral 3B 14B model 

- Analyze portfolio risk using Sparrow Instructor pipeline and Gemma 4 31B model — classifying each position as low, medium, or high risk

 

Both steps run as Prefect tasks inside a single flow, fully locally — no data leaves your machine.

 

Instruction-Based Data Analysis with Sparrow and Local LLM

In this video, I show how to use Sparrow instruction processing pipeline to analyze a bond portfolio JSON extracted from a financial document — all running locally, no external APIs.

I run three different analysis cases using Gemma 4 31B on Apple Silicon Mac Mini M4 Pro:

• Risk classification — categorize each position into low, medium, or high risk based on loss percentage
• Concentration risk — flag overweight positions above 20% portfolio weighting
• Portfolio aggregation — total valuation, weighted average P&L, best and worst performer

All three cases use the same sparrow-instructor pipeline, demonstrating how different instruction types — classification, rule-based flagging, and aggregation — are handled by a single local LLM.

Smart Document Extraction with Business Rules — Gemma vs Qwen vs Ministral

In this video I show how Sparrow hints work — a powerful feature that goes beyond simple field extraction. Using a bank bonds portfolio document, I demonstrate how to define business rules directly in the hints file: formatting rules for European number standards, short name normalization, and risk classification logic derived from extracted fields. I test the same hints across three local vision models — Gemma 4 31B Dense, Qwen 3.6 27B Dense, and Ministral 3 14B. All processing runs locally with no cloud dependencies.

 

Large Table Extraction to JSON with dots.ocr — No Vision LLM Hallucinations

Sparrow now supports a dedicated table mode for extracting large, complex tables into structured JSON — without Vision LLM hallucinations. 

Vision LLMs struggle with dense tabular data: they hallucinate values, misalign rows, and lose precision at scale. Sparrow's table mode solves this by using dots.ocr to capture the full table structure as HTML, then applying a generic Sparrow template to convert that HTML into clean, structured JSON. 

 

MoE vs Dense Models for Structured Data Extraction — Who Wins?

MoE or Dense — which model architecture wins for structured data extraction from documents? It depends on document complexity. In this video, I test MoE vs Dense models on real extraction tasks and show that MoE struggles with larger tables, while Dense models handle them reliably. In my benchmark, Qwen 3.6 Dense comes out on top.

 

Gemma 4 for Structured Data Extraction: Can It Beat Qwen 3.5?

In this video, I put Gemma 4 to the test on a real-world task — extracting structured data from bank statements — and benchmark it head-to-head against Mistral's Ministral and Qwen 3.5.

I run both the MoE and Dense variants of Gemma 4 to see how architecture affects accuracy on financial documents, then compare the results side-by-side.

My takeaway: Gemma 4 holds its own and performs on par with Qwen 3.5 — a strong result for local structured extraction workflows.