Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 4 26B A4B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 3 to Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 7
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 57.96 versus 57.25. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemma 4 26B A4B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 43.4 against 27.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 18.8% to 17.2%.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 26B A4B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | Margin→ 16.0 | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 18.8%B 17.2%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 1.6HLE: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%; Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 26B A4B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 18.8% | 17.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 25.7% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 79.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 18.3% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | -48.1% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 18.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 80.9% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 8.7% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 72.4% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.96 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 18.8% and 17.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 43.4 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.