Model Comparison
Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) 8 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Output price, TTFT
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
32.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
13.3 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 E2B (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) by 10.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) by 4.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) wins 8 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, TTFT, Latency.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.08/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.29/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.13/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 92.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1025ms |
| Latency | — | 1025ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 21.1 | 32.0 |
| Intelligence | 15.2 | 12.5 |
| Coding | 9.0 | 13.3 |
| Math | — | 21.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 43.3% | 51.5% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 71.0% |
| HLE | 4.8% | 4.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 32.2% |
| MATH 500 | — | 86.3% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 21.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 26.0% |
| SciCode | 20.9% | 26.4% |
| LCR | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 38.0% | 31.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 20.8% | 22.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.0% | 6.8% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 E2B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 32.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 13.3 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 E2B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
