Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 50 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 1
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 50
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus 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 19 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 57.96. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 60.1 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 34.7%.
Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 | Margin→ 16.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin→ 7.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Math | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 17.2%B 34.7%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 17.5HLE: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82.6%B 88.5%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.9MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 82.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.8%B 79%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.2MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | 20.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | 21.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | 936 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.3% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.0% | 45.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | 88.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| HLESource | 17.2% | 34.7% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | 22.2% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.8% | 79% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.2% | 80.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 57.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 34.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 43.4. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 73.8. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.