Model Comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
37.3 reasoning / $0.06/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
$0.03/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
37.3 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
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) is 4.3x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.4x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) leads Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) by 0.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) by 11.6 points on coding.
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
—
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.03/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20/1M | $0.06/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 53.3 tok/s | 22.5 tok/s |
| TTFT | 805ms | 458ms |
| Latency | 805ms | 89161ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 29.6 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 36.4 | 37.3 |
| Intelligence | 27.1 | 27.1 |
| Coding | 29.1 | 17.5 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.4% | 77.1% |
| HLE | 10.7% | 7.8% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 16.1% |
| LCR | 39.7% | 55.7% |
| IFBench | 45.4% | 52.0% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.4% | 92.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 25.0% | 18.2% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.03/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 37.3 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)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
