Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads 58.8 to 41.8.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0765 / $0.26 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 32.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 33K |
| Max output | 33K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.0765 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.26 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 31 |
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: 38.8 (#156), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1446 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | — |
| SciCode | 40% | — |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.1 (#205), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1438 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 119.41 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| DTBench | 74.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#61), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1469 | 1251 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.6 (#79), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.9 (#43), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | — |
Multilingual Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.3 (#68), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1422 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1415 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 75.0 (#78), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#87), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1427 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.8 (#110), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1442 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.0765 per million input tokens and $0.26 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.8 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT does, with 262K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.