Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemma 4 E4B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

43.04/100
Margin
8.3pts
winning →
51.36/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E4B unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 E4B estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemma 4 E4B; 43 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
15
Gemma 4 E4B only
0
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
43
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 40. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.

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 scores and score margins for Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryGemma 4 E4BΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B67.4Margin← 15.6Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8
AgenticGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
CodingGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8
MathGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2
MultimodalGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemma 4 E4BB · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 58.6%B 86%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 27.4
    GPQA: Gemma 4 E4B scored 58.6%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 85.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 15.8
    MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 E4B scored 69.4%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 85.2%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 E4BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 E4BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 E4B128KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 20.8%95.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —42.65%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench HardSource 8.3%34.8%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 24.4%35.8%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —73.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —49.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —41.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 30.7%63.7%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
CritPtSource 0.6%0.3%Gemma 4 E4B leads
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
GPQASource 58.6%86%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MMLU-ProSource 69.4%85.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 12.5%31.6%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 57.6%84.1%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-HLESource 3.7%20.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -20.0%-21.4%Gemma 4 E4B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 8.6%18.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 31.3%49.7%Gemma 4 E4B leads
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
HLESource —21.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source —92.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 51.4%75.0%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.3%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.2%64.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemma 4 E4B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 40. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 58.6% and 86%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E4B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 51.8. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 15, 2026

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.