Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.5 397B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 36 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 1
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 57.01. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 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 Qwen3.5 397B 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. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 | Margin→ 13.2 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin→ 5.8 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 17.2%B 28.7%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 11.5HLE: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82.6%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 5.2MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 82.6%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.8%B 79%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 5.2MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 79%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Gemma 4 26B A4B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | 19.9% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | 23.1% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | 962 | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5 397B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | 87.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| HLESource | 17.2% | 28.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | -29.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | 89.1% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.8% | 79% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.2% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.96 to 57.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 28.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.6 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 73.8. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.