Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
55
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
64
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked · Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #10
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Knowledge
+32.4 difference
Multimodal
+3.4 difference
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
262K
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 55. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 81.6 against 49.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU-Pro, 82.6% to 86.7%.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 64 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 82.6% and 86.7%.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.6 versus 49.2. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 73.8. Gemma 4 26B A4B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.