Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 31B supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Inkling share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 12 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 26
- Inkling only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.6 against 41.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 26.5% to 46%. Gemma 4 31B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 31B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
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 31B | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 27.0 | Inkling68.6 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B53.3 | Margin← 1.6 | Inkling51.7 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | Margin← 0.4 | Inkling76.5 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Math | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 26.5%B 46%Winner: InklingΔ 19.5HLE: Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%; Inkling scored 46%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 87.9%Winner: InklingΔ 3.6GPQA: Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 76.9%B 73.5%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 3.4MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 76.9%; Inkling scored 73.5%. Gemma 4 31B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 31B | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 31B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | 87.9% | Inkling leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | 46% | Inkling leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | 30% | Inkling leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemma 4 31B wins4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 26.5% and 46%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Inkling?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Inkling?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 76.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.