Model Comparison
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Output price, Throughput
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
49.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
38.7 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
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B.
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B by 20.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B by 26.8 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, Throughput, Reasoning.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) | Al Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.36/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.37/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Sep 19, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 34.4 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 937ms | — |
| Latency | 51332ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 49.2 | 28.4 |
| Intelligence | 39.2 | 15.6 |
| Coding | 38.7 | 11.9 |
| Math | — | 14.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 85.7% | 49.1% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 72.0% |
| HLE | 22.7% | 4.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 27.6% |
| MATH 500 | — | 85.8% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 14.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 16.0% |
| SciCode | 43.4% | 26.7% |
| LCR | 62.0% | 20.3% |
| IFBench | 75.6% | 36.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 59.9% | 34.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 36.4% | 4.5% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 49.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) reaches a 38.7 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 31B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
