Back to Value Frontier

Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google: Gemma 4 31B

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 9:51:44 PM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B against Google: Gemma 4 31B, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B is approximately 2% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Google: Gemma 4 31B leads with a statistical ELO score of 1583. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Google: Gemma 4 31B, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B
Google: Gemma 4 31B
Performance (ELO)
1571
1583
Input Cost / 1M
$0.13
$0.14
Output Cost / 1M
$0.40
$0.40
Context Window
262,144 tokens
262,144 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Google: Gemma 4 31B is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B cheaper than Google: Gemma 4 31B?

Yes. Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper for both input and output generation compared to Google: Gemma 4 31B. Exploring alternatives often yields cost reductions.

Which model has the larger context window?

Both models offer an identical context window of 262,144 tokens.

Related Comparisons

Compare Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Nous: Hermes 3 405B Instruct (free)Compare Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Sao10K: Llama 3 8B LunarisCompare Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Google: Gemini 2.0 Flash LiteCompare Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs OpenAI: GPT-5 Nano