Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 31B leads on the public coding lane, 35.6 to 34.1, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B
Updated September 30, 2026. Rank says Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the higher public score estimate, 46.24 versus 44.75, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 4
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 0
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
Supported: Gemma 4 26B A4B · Estimated: Gemma 4 31BHow the comparison works
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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat 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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
34.1Gemma 4 26B A4B35.6Gemma 4 31B
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Gemma 4 31B leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
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
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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 w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 10.8Gemma 4 26B A4B:8.7%Gemma 4 31B:19.5%HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 9.3Gemma 4 26B A4B:17.2%Gemma 4 31B:26.5%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 3.1Gemma 4 26B A4B:73.8%Gemma 4 31B:76.9%MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.6Gemma 4 26B A4B:82.6%Gemma 4 31B:85.2%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 34.1
- Supported · #84/143
- Gemma 4 31B
- 35.6
- Supported · #80/143
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Gemma 4 31B leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 45.2
- #43/50
- Gemma 4 31B
- 59.5
- #32/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Gemma 4 31B leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 36.4
- Supported · #109/169
- Gemma 4 31B
- 40.0
- Supported · #99/169
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Gemma 4 31B leads · intervals overlap
Instruction following
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 87.3
- #31/124
- Gemma 4 31B
- 91.5
- #12/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 24.5
- Estimated · #92/117
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 67.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Gemma 4 31B
- 70.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Gemma 4 31B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 34.1Supported · #84/143 | 35.6Supported · #80/143 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Gemma 4 31B leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 45.2#43/50 | 59.5#32/50 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| Knowledge | 36.4Supported · #109/169 | 40.0Supported · #99/169 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows | Gemma 4 31B leads · intervals overlap |
| Instruction following | 87.3#31/124 | 91.5#12/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 24.5Estimated · #92/117 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 67.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 70.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
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 26B A4B has the higher public score estimate, 46.24 versus 44.75, 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.
Questions
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the higher public score estimate, 46.24 versus 44.75, 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?
Gemma 4 31B leads the public coding lane, 35.6 to 34.1, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
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.
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
Multimodal
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
8 public results · 4 shared
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.
Last updated September 30, 2026