Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.86/100
Margin
6.5pts
← winning
51.36/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 26B A4B supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 20 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 38 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
20
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
1
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
38
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 59 versus 56. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 51.8 against 43.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 21.4%.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, 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 scores and score margins for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryGemma 4 26B A4BΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
KnowledgeGemma 4 26B A4B43.8Margin→ 8.0Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B73.8Margin→ 2.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3
AgenticGemma 4 26B A4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
CodingGemma 4 26B A4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8
MathGemma 4 26B A4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemma 4 26B A4BB · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 17.2%B 21.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 4.2
    HLE: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82.6%B 85.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 2.6
    MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 82.6%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 85.2%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 73.8%B 75.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 1.5
    MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 26B A4BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 26B A4BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 26B A4B256KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 11.0%21.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 43.6%95.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
GDPval-AASource 13.1%27.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
GDPval-AASource 7611049Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —42.65%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA Coding IndexSource 39.3%41.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 13.6%34.8%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 40.0%35.8%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —73.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —49.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 55.7%63.7%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
KnowledgeQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource 82.6%85.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
HLESource 17.2%21.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 8.7%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.7%31.6%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.2%84.1%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-HLESource 18.3%20.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -48.1%-21.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.2%18.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.9%49.7%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source —92.7%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.8%75.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.2%75.0%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 72.4%64.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 21.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.8 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 73.8. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.