Model Comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) 6 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
$0.00/1M 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
Price gap
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B by 7.0 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) wins 6 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
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
—
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Nov 11, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 85.1 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 800ms | — |
| Latency | 800ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 36.4 | 29.4 |
| Intelligence | 27.1 | 12.9 |
| Coding | 29.1 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.4% | 41.7% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 63.5% |
| HLE | 10.7% | 3.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | — | 76.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 12.0% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 27.1% |
| LCR | 39.7% | — |
| IFBench | 45.4% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.4% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 25.0% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B offers the best value at $0.00/1M, 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)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
