Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
64
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+28.3 difference
Knowledge
+3.7 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
128K
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 59. 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 57.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 84.3% to 57.6%. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 64 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 84.3% and 57.6%.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.3 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.