Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 4 26B A4B IT's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher in 7 categories and gpt-oss-120b in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads 43.6 to 31.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 6% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and 20% for gpt-oss-120b.
- gpt-oss-120b is cheaper at $0.037 / $0.17 per million input/output tokens, against $0.09 / $0.30 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2025-08-05 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Max output | 33K | 41K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.09 | $0.037 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.17 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 48 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164), gpt-oss-120b: 33.5 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40% | 36% |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 48.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1380 |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | 575.62 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 26% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | — |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.41 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —, gpt-oss-120b: 12.2 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 18.7% |
| APEX-Agents | — | 4.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 56.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | -21.53 |
Reasoning Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213), gpt-oss-120b: 20.0 (#245)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 1.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1364 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 76.3% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 22.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 139.93 |
| SimpleBench | — | 22.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 58.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 2% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 25% |
Math gpt-oss-120b leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67), gpt-oss-120b: 52.5 (#50)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | 88.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1389 |
| Omni-MATH | — | 68.8% |
Knowledge Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85), gpt-oss-120b: 42.4 (#96)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | 75.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | 14.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1356 |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 79.5% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 68.4% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46), gpt-oss-120b: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | — |
Multilingual Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71), gpt-oss-120b: 48.0 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1351 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1369 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1343 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | 1389 |
| LMArena German | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1331 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1282 |
Instruction Following Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82), gpt-oss-120b: 69.3 (#173)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1318 |
| IFEval | — | 83.6% |
Long Context Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91), gpt-oss-120b: 31.4 (#278)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1319 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 44.4% |
Writing & Preference Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115), gpt-oss-120b: 46.5 (#217)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1365 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1275 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | 961 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1340 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 77.1% |
| WildBench | — | 84.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than gpt-oss-120b?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 4 26B A4B IT's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or gpt-oss-120b?
gpt-oss-120b is cheaper. It lists at $0.037 per million input tokens and $0.17 per million output tokens; Gemma 4 26B A4B IT lists at $0.09 and $0.30.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or gpt-oss-120b better for coding?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.0 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and gpt-oss-120b share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and gpt-oss-120b has 48.