Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Sibling matchup inside the Gemma 4 family.
Gemma 4 31B
65
Gemma 4 E2B
27
Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window, while Gemma 4 E2B is the cleaner fit if its score, price, or context tradeoffs line up better with your workload.
Knowledge
+7.2 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 E2B
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
128K
Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window, while Gemma 4 E2B is the cleaner fit if its score, price, or context tradeoffs line up better with your workload.
Gemma 4 31B and Gemma 4 E2B sit in the same Gemma 4 family. This page is less about two unrelated model lineages and more about how the siblings trade off on benchmark shape, token costs, and practical limits like context window.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 65 to 27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 31B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 61.3 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 84.3% to 43.4%.
Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
Gemma 4 31B and Gemma 4 E2B are sibling variants in the Gemma 4 family, so the right pick depends on whether you value the better benchmark line, cheaper tokens, or the larger context window. Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard 65 to 27.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.3 versus 54.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.