Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5 27B
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 41.9 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 Qwen3.5 27B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads 47.6 to 38.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 74.9% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and 82.4% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0675 / $0.23 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.0675 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.23 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | 1358 |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1427 |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | 349.45 |
| SciCode | 40% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1414 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 82.4% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 34% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | — |
Math Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1429 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | — |
Multimodal Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | 1241 |
Multilingual Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1410 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | 1407 |
| LMArena German | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
Instruction Following Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1393 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1410 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.5 27B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.0675 per million input tokens and $0.23 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (39.0 vs 38.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen3.5 27B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.