Model Comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
vs. GPT-4.1 nano
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, OpenAI
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, TTFT, Latency
Best Value
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
42.9 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
GPT-4.1 nano
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
42.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
22.4 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
GPT-4.1 nano is 1.3x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) leads GPT-4.1 nano by 10.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) leads GPT-4.1 nano by 11.2 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including Value, TTFT, Latency, Reasoning.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
GPT-4.1 nano
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) | Op GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Apr 14, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 138.4 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 425ms |
| Latency | — | 425ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 84.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 42.9 | 32.1 |
| Intelligence | 31.2 | 13.0 |
| Coding | 22.4 | 11.2 |
| Math | — | 24.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.2% | 51.2% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 65.7% |
| HLE | 18.3% | 3.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 32.6% |
| MATH 500 | — | 84.8% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 24.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 23.7% |
| SciCode | 40.0% | 25.9% |
| LCR | 55.7% | 17.0% |
| IFBench | 72.4% | 32.0% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 43.6% | 17.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 13.6% | 3.8% |
Key Takeaways
GPT-4.1 nano offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 42.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) reaches a 22.4 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
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
GPT-4.1 nano
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
