Model Comparison
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
vs. Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Google
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
42.9 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
$0.13/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
43.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
31.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) is 2.1x cheaper on input tokens than V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) by 1.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) by 9.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | De V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.27/1M | $0.13/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.00/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | |
| Release Date | Sep 22, 2025 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | — |
| TTFT | — | — |
| Latency | — | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 44.6 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 43.9 | 42.9 |
| Intelligence | 28.5 | 31.2 |
| Coding | 31.9 | 22.4 |
| Math | 53.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.1% | 79.2% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.6% | — |
| HLE | 8.4% | 18.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 52.9% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 53.7% | — |
| SciCode | 32.1% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 43.3% | 55.7% |
| IFBench | 41.2% | 72.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 37.1% | 43.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.8% | 13.6% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.13/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 43.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) reaches a 31.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
