# Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## 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 58.6 to 41.6.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.30 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.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 92 | 245 |
| Context | 262K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.09 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $0.30 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 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

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 119.49 |
| 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: 47.6 (#67)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1251 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| 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

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| 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: 43.6 (#91)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.4 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 $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.30 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: 39.0 versus 22.6 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.