Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
64
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+41.9 difference
Knowledge
+34.2 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Sakana Fugu Ultra
$0 / $0
$5 / $30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
1M
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 83.5 against 41.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 84.3% to 95.5%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 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. Sakana Fugu Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 84.3% and 95.5%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95.5 versus 61.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 83.5 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.