Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Laguna S 2.1
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Laguna S 2.1 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 6 to Laguna S 2.1.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 29
- Laguna S 2.1 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemma 4 31B and Laguna S 2.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Laguna S 2.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.20 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. Laguna S 2.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 31B | Laguna S 2.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Laguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Laguna S 2.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Laguna S 2.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Laguna S 2.11M | Laguna S 2.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Laguna S 2.1 | 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 ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.2% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
CodingLaguna S 2.1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Laguna S 2.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 78.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 59.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 40.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Laguna S 2.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Laguna S 2.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Laguna S 2.1?
Gemma 4 31B and Laguna S 2.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Laguna S 2.1?
Laguna S 2.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.