Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Soofi S 30B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Soofi S 30B-A3B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 6 to Soofi S 30B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 28
- Soofi S 30B-A3B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Soofi S 30B-A3B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 61 to 45. 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 53.3 against 49.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 84.3% to 43.4%.
Gemma 4 31B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Soofi S 30B-A3B 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. Soofi S 30B-A3B 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 | Soofi S 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B53.3 | Margin← 3.4 | Soofi S 30B-A3B49.9 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 43.4%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 40.9GPQA: Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%; Soofi S 30B-A3B scored 43.4%. Gemma 4 31B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 85.2%B 51.4%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 33.8MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 85.2%; Soofi S 30B-A3B scored 51.4%. 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 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Soofi S 30B-A3B1M | Soofi S 30B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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 |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 31B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | 43.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | 51.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| 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 |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 43.4% | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8KSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 84.3% and 43.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 49.9. Inside this category, GPQA 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.