Capability
60.2/100
field median 58.2
#62 of 218 ranked models
Gemma 4 31B
Released Apr 2, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision reading
Gemma 4 31B scores 60.2 out of 100 and ranks #62 of 218. This profile shows 8 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Coding at #89. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.
Data as of August 15, 2026 · How the score is built
Strongest published evidence
Coding ranks #89. Particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.
Validate before choosing
8 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Price
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
input median $1
No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
36tok/s
field median 94 tok/s
First token 49.9 s
Context
256Ktokens
field median 200,000
Maximum output length is tracked separately
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Gemma 4 31B category percentile values
- Agentic4th percentile
- Coding34th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- KnowledgeNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#125/130
- Coding#89/135
- ReasoningNot ranked
- KnowledgeNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
How much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic1/1 verified
- Coding2/2 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- Knowledge3/4 verified
- MathNot measured
- MultilingualNot measured
- Multimodal1/1 verified
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- gemma-4-31b-itGoogle Gemma Gemini API guide
- Context window
- 256KGoogle Gemma 4 model documentation
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- text, imageGoogle Gemma 4 model documentation
- Output modalities
- textGoogle Gemma 4 model documentation
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- Gemini API · Google AI Studio · open weightsGoogle Gemma Gemini API guide
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- activeGoogle gemma-4-31B model card
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing record
- Self-host
- Gemma 4 31B needs ~24GB VRAM (1× NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24GB)).
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemma 4 31B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #125 of 130Percentile 4thWeight 22%1 benchmarkVerified | 25.5 | #125 of 130 | 4th | 22% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| CodingRank #89 of 135Percentile 34thWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 47.0 | #89 of 135 | 34th | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%4 benchmarksMixed sources | 50.6 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified | 60.0 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-Rebench | Score41.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.6 · 65.3% | Gap23.7 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Benchmark exact |
| React Native Evals | Score75.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Composer 2 · 96.1% | Gap20.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score35.26% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap37.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Knowledge4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score26.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 64.7% | Gap38.2 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding Professional | Score85.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6% | Gap4.4 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score84.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap11.2 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Reported |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score19.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 59% | Gap39.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Multimodal1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score76.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94% | Gap17.1 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Apr 2, 2026 · you are here
Gemma 4 31BScore 60.1 · Price not listed
31b
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Gemma 4 31B ranks #62 of 218 on the public leaderboard with a score of 60.15/100. Its source-verified position is #39 of 104.
Gemma 4 31B is a open weight model with a 256K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Official exact-value snapshot from Google's April 2, 2026 Gemma 4 model card and launch post. BenchLM maps only schema-equivalent results from the published table: MMLU Pro, GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench v6, HLE no tools / with search, BigBench Extra Hard, MMMU Pro, and MRCR v2. AIME 2026, Codeforces, MMMLU, OmniDocBench 1.5, MATH-Vision, MedXPertQA MM, audio benchmarks, and Tau2 (average over 3) remain out-of-schema or non-equivalent to current weighted keys.
Gemma 4 31B sits in the Gemma 4 family with Gemma 4 26B A4B, Gemma 4 12B, Gemma 4 E2B, Gemma 4 E4B. 8 of 437 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Coding at #89, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #125. particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.
Radar
Full release historyGemma 4 31B release history
Gemma 4 released
Google · Model release
Source confirmed
Frequently asked questions
How does Gemma 4 31B perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Gemma 4 31B ranks #62 out of 218 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 60.15/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 8 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Gemma 4 31B good for knowledge and understanding?
Gemma 4 31B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Gemma 4 31B good for coding and programming?
Gemma 4 31B ranks #89 out of 135 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 47/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemma 4 31B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Gemma 4 31B ranks #125 out of 130 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 25.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemma 4 31B good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Gemma 4 31B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multimodal and grounded tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Gemma 4 31B open source?
Gemma 4 31B is an open-weight model from Google. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
Which sibling models are related to Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B belongs to the Gemma 4 family. Related tracked variants include Gemma 4 26B A4B, Gemma 4 12B, Gemma 4 E2B, plus 1 more. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Gemma 4 31B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Gemma 4 31B currently has 24 source-displayable rows across 437 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B has a documented context window of 256K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.
Last updated August 15, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Watch Gemma 4 31B in the weekly brief
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.