Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #73 (Supported); Ling 3.0 Flash unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 3.0 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 0 to Ling 3.0 Flash.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 20
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 3.0 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Ling 3.0 Flash yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Ling 3.0 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Ling 3.0 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Ling 3.0 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Ling 3.0 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Ling 3.0 Flash262K | Ling 3.0 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Ling 3.0 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 17.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Ling 3.0 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 3.0 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 3.0 Flash today?
Gemma 4 26B A4B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Ling 3.0 Flash: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.