Knowledge
Directional only- Gemma 4 E2B
- 56.9
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- 78.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemma 4 E2B vs Qwen3 235B 2507
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3 235B 2507 has the higher public score estimate, 56.45 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Gemma 4 E2B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3 235B 2507 does not fit this workload in one request. Gemma 4 E2B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Shared
2 Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- Shared results
- 2
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 0
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- 79.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 E2B | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 56.9 | 78.9 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 79.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
GPQA
Knowledge
Gemma 4 E2B: 43.4%Qwen3 235B 2507: 77.5%Normalized gap 34.1Gemma 4 E2B source Qwen3 235B 2507 sourceMMLU-Pro
Knowledge
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E2B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E2B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Qwen3 235B 2507
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemma 4 E2B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3 235B 2507 does not fit this workload in one request. Gemma 4 E2B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemma 4 E2BQwen3 235B 2507
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 E2B
Qwen3 235B 2507
128K
API model ID
Gemma 4 E2B
Not sourced
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemma 4 E2B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3 235B 2507
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemma 4 E2B
text, image, audio, video
Google Gemma 4 model documentationQwen3 235B 2507
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemma 4 E2B
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weights · open weights
Google gemma-4-E2B model cardQwen3 235B 2507
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemma 4 E2B
Reasoning
Qwen3 235B 2507
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weight
Qwen3 235B 2507
Open Weight
License
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weight
Qwen3 235B 2507
Open Weight
Release date
Gemma 4 E2B
2026-04-02
Qwen3 235B 2507
2025-07-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3 235B 2507 has the higher public score estimate, 56.45 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 128K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence4 rows
Knowledge
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Gemma 4 E2B—Qwen3 235B 250779.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Qwen3 235B 2507 has the higher public score estimate, 56.45 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 E2B or Qwen3 235B 2507?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or Qwen3 235B 2507?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemma 4 E2B or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 E2B or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Both models list the same context window, 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Gemma 4 E2B vs Qwen3 235B 2507
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.