Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3 32B
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads 47.6 to 39.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 82.2% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0675 / $0.23 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Max output | 33K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.0675 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.23 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 26 |
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), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40% | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | — |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
Math Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1399 |
Knowledge Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1362 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46), Qwen3 32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | — |
Multilingual Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | — |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1305 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1331 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen3 32B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3 32B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.0675 per million input tokens and $0.23 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.0 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.