# Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.8 Max

> Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 28× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it-vs-qwen3-8-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 54.4 to 21.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 6% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and 40% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0675 / $0.23 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 56.8 |
| Rank | 92 | 22 |
| Context | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.0675 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.23 | $6 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1359 | 1674 |
| SciCode | 40% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 927.17 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1439 | 1496 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 92% |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.85 | 156.41 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |

## Math

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 82.2% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 73.2% | 92.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1447 | 1507 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1421 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1503 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | 1492 |
| LMArena German | — | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1461 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1479 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1489 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | 1489 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1305 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 28× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Max lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 39.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen3.8 Max share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.