Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.

Qwen3.5 397B 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 397B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 65.2 against 49.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 28.7%.

Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 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. Gemma 4 26B A4B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.