Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 21 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 36 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 8
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 61.08 to 51.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 31B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 52.9 against 51.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 26.5% to 21.4%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 32.2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B52.9 | Margin← 1.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.4 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | Margin← 0.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Math | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 26.5%B 21.4%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 5.1HLE: Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Gemma 4 31B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 86%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 1.7GPQA: Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 76.9%B 75.3%Winner: Gemma 4 31BΔ 1.6MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 76.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | 21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | 27.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | 1049 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | 42.65% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | 41.9% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | 35.8% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 31B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | 86% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | 85.2% | Tie |
| HLESource | 26.5% | 21.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | 84.1% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | 20.2% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | -21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | 18.9% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
MultimodalGemma 4 31B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 76.9% | 75.3% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 73.4% | 75.0% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | 64.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.08 to 51.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 26.5% and 21.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.9 versus 51.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 76.3. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.