Updated October 20, 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.
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the higher public point estimate, 45.61 versus 45.07. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 31.6 to 30.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented context window.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.5GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.7Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Ling 3.0 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 30.9Supported · #94/152 | 31.6Supported · #92/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Ling 3.0 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 39.9Estimated · #121/187 | 43.5Supported · #107/187 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 5 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 88.7#34/149 | 75.2#68/149 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 33.4Supported · #87/131 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 9 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 52.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 75.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.9#40/55 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 81.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Ling 3.0 Flash
Gemma 4 26B A4B
gemma-4-26b-a4b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideLing 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
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
Ling 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardGemma 4 26B A4B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationLing 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideLing 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Reasoning
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Gemma 4 26B A4B
2026-04-02
Ling 3.0 Flash
2026-07-23
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the higher public point estimate, 45.61 versus 45.07. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 31.6 to 30.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
HLE
Ling 3.0 Flash leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 20, 2026
