Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 4 12B vs Gemma 4 E2B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Sibling matchup inside the Gemma 4 family.

47.29/100
Margin
5.5pts
← winning
41.82/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Gemma 4 E2B #162 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Gemma 4 E2B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 0 to Gemma 4 E2B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Gemma 4 12B only
9
Gemma 4 E2B only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Gemma 4 12B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window, while Gemma 4 E2B is the cleaner fit if its score, price, or context tradeoffs line up better with your workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemma 4 12B and Gemma 4 E2B sit in the same Gemma 4 family. This page is less about two unrelated model lineages and more about how the siblings trade off on benchmark shape, token costs, and practical limits like context window.

Gemma 4 12B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 47.29 to 41.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemma 4 12B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 77.5 against 56.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 78.8% to 43.4%.

Gemma 4 12B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Gemma 4 12B and Gemma 4 E2B
CategoryGemma 4 12BΔGemma 4 E2B
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B77.5Margin 20.6Gemma 4 E2B56.9
ReasoningGemma 4 12B43.4MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured
MathGemma 4 12B77.5MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured
MultimodalGemma 4 12B69.1MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemma 4 12BB · Gemma 4 E2B
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 78.8%B 43.4%
    Winner: Gemma 4 12BΔ 35.4
    GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%. Gemma 4 12B wins this benchmark.
  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 60%
    Winner: Gemma 4 12BΔ 17.2
    MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.2%; Gemma 4 E2B scored 60%. Gemma 4 12B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 12BNot availableGemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 12BNot availableGemma 4 E2BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 12BNot availableGemma 4 E2BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 12B256KGemma 4 E2B128KGemma 4 12B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 36.3%20.8%Gemma 4 12B leads
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
AA-SciCodeSource 38.2%20.9%Gemma 4 12B leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
BBHSource 53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 55.3%15.0%Gemma 4 12B leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.0%Tie
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
GPQASource 78.8%43.4%Gemma 4 12B leads
GPQA-DSource 78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%60%Gemma 4 12B leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 22.0%9.3%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.3%37.5%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-HLESource 14.8%4.8%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -51.9%-24.0%Gemma 4 E2B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 16.0%6.7%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.8%32.9%Gemma 4 E2B leads
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
AIME26Source 77.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%44.6%Gemma 4 12B leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BGemma 4 E2BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%35.1%Gemma 4 12B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Gemma 4 E2B?

Gemma 4 12B and Gemma 4 E2B are sibling variants in the Gemma 4 family, so the right pick depends on whether you value the better benchmark line, cheaper tokens, or the larger context window. Gemma 4 12B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard 47.29 to 41.82.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Gemma 4 E2B?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.