Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Gemma 4 E4B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Sibling matchup inside the Gemma 4 family.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); Gemma 4 E4B #155 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Gemma 4 E4B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 0 to Gemma 4 E4B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 15
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if you need the larger 256K context window, while Gemma 4 E4B is the cleaner fit if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 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 31B and Gemma 4 E4B sit in the same Gemma 4 family. This page is less about two unrelated model lineages and more about how the siblings trade off on benchmark shape, token costs, and practical limits like context window.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 61.08 to 43.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.
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 31B | Δ | Gemma 4 E4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B52.9 | Margin→ 14.5 | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 58.6%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 25.7GPQA: Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%; Gemma 4 E4B scored 58.6%. Gemma 4 31B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 85.2%B 69.4%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 15.8MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 85.2%; Gemma 4 E4B scored 69.4%. Gemma 4 31B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 31B | Gemma 4 E4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Gemma 4 E4B128K | Gemma 4 31B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | 20.8% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | 58.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | 69.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | 12.5% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | 57.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | 3.7% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | -20.0% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | 8.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 31.3% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | 44.2% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Gemma 4 E4B?
Gemma 4 31B and Gemma 4 E4B are sibling variants in the Gemma 4 family, so the right pick depends on whether you value the better benchmark line, cheaper tokens, or the larger context window. Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard 61.08 to 43.2.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Gemma 4 E4B?
Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 52.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.