Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs HyperClova X Think 32B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); HyperClova X Think 32B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and HyperClova X Think 32B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 0 to HyperClova X Think 32B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 23
- HyperClova X Think 32B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemma 4 12B and HyperClova X Think 32B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for HyperClova X Think 32B yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Gemma 4 12B has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for HyperClova X Think 32B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | HyperClova X Think 32BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | HyperClova X Think 32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | HyperClova X Think 32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | HyperClova X Think 32B128K | Gemma 4 12B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 36.3% | — | Not comparable |
Coding1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.2% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 5.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | HyperClova X Think 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Can I compare Gemma 4 12B and HyperClova X Think 32B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.