Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs MAI-Thinking-1
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and MAI-Thinking-1 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 9 to MAI-Thinking-1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 19
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemma 4 12B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
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 | Gemma 4 12B | Δ | MAI-Thinking-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin→ 12.2 | MAI-Thinking-189.7 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 5.0 | MAI-Thinking-172.5 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-146.0 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-165.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 12B43.4 | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-1Not measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 12B69.1 | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-1Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-185.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 77.5%B 94.5%Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 17AIME26: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.5%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 94.5%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 77.2%B 85%Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 7.8MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.2%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 85%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 78.8%B 84.2%Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 5.4GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | MAI-Thinking-1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | MAI-Thinking-1256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | 84.2% | MAI-Thinking-1 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | 84.2% | MAI-Thinking-1 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | 85% | MAI-Thinking-1 leads |
| 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 |
| SimpleQASource | — | 31% | Not comparable |
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or MAI-Thinking-1?
Gemma 4 12B and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or MAI-Thinking-1?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 72.5. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 77.5. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.