Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 73.8
- Gemma 4 31B
- 76.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Gemma 4 31B leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B
Updated August 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.
Decision reading
Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 57.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Shared
4 Gemma 4 31B only
- Shared results
- 4
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 0
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 43.4
- Gemma 4 31B
- 52.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- 41.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Gemma 4 31B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 73.8 | 76.9 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| Knowledge | 43.4 | 52.9 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 41.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
MMLU-Pro
Knowledge
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemma 4 26B A4BGemma 4 31B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 31B
API model ID
Gemma 4 26B A4B
gemma-4-26b-a4b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideGemma 4 31B
gemma-4-31b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
No comparable hosted API rate
Gemma 4 31B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemma 4 26B A4B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationGemma 4 31B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 31B
Provider availability
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideGemma 4 31B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideReasoning profile
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
License
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemma 4 26B A4B
2026-04-02
Gemma 4 31B
2026-04-02
If you are choosing between sibling variants
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Google as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 57.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Gemma 4 31B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence8 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Gemma 4 31B35.26%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 26B A4B82.6%SourceGemma 4 31B85.2%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
HLE
Gemma 4 26B A4B17.2%SourceGemma 4 31B26.5%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 26B A4B8.7%SourceGemma 4 31B19.5%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
GPQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Gemma 4 31B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 57.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 15, 2026
Watch Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.