Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.5
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-5.5 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 38 to GPT-5.5.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 1
- GPT-5.5 only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 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
GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 57.96. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 57.8 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 52.2%. Gemma 4 26B A4B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
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 26B A4B | Δ | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 | Margin→ 14.4 | GPT-5.557.8 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin← 3.4 | GPT-5.570.4 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.581.6 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.558.6 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.585.0 |
| Math | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.547.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | GPT-5.5$5 input / $30 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | GPT-5.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | GPT-5.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | GPT-5.51M | GPT-5.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | 44.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | 93.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | 49.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | 1490 | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 82% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 78.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 55.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 72.93% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 17.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 13.0% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 13.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1154 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 42.1% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 46.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 86.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 45.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.3% | 74.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.0% | 56.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 82.0% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 69.85% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 59.2% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 58.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 43.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 17.2% | 52.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | 41.4% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | 54.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | 93.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | 44.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | 20.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | 56.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | 85.5% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | 75.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GPT-5.5?
GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 57.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 52.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GPT-5.5?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.8 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GPT-5.5?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 70.4. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.