Model Comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Large 3
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Google, Mistral
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
36.4 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
$0.13/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
36.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
29.1 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 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) is 3.8x cheaper on input tokens than Large 3.
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Large 3 by 2.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Large 3 by 6.4 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) wins 15 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.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Large 3
Mistral
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) | Mi Large 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.50/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $1.50/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20/1M | $0.75/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Mistral | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Dec 2, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.1 tok/s | 63.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 863ms | 613ms |
| Latency | 863ms | 613ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 24.7 |
| Reasoning Score | 36.4 | 34.2 |
| Intelligence | 27.1 | 22.8 |
| Coding | 29.1 | 22.7 |
| Math | — | 38.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.4% | 68.0% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 80.7% |
| HLE | 10.7% | 4.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 46.5% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 38.0% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 36.2% |
| LCR | 39.7% | 34.7% |
| IFBench | 45.4% | 36.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.4% | 24.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 25.0% | 15.9% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.13/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 36.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 29.1 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 (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Large 3
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
