Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 21.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 74.9% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0675 / $0.23 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.0675 | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.23 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | 1593 |
| SciCode | 40% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1482 |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 5.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1460 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 88% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 41.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 149.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
Math Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1456 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1482 |
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | 1271 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1465 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | 1448 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1439 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1384 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1441 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.8 27B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.0675 per million input tokens and $0.23 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 39.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen3.8 27B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.