GoogleGemini 2.5 FlashVSGoogleGemma 4 31B
Our Take
We recommend Gemma 4 31B over Gemini 2.5 Flash because it holds a clear reasoning lead. Choose Gemma 4 31B for offline data control and scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions, or Gemini 2.5 Flash only if you prefer using a cloud-hosted API setup for multi-file code and clearly defined tasks.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%, while Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 68.3% (+16.0% gap).
Coding Performance: Evaluated on different benchmarks. Gemma 4 31B scored 80% on LiveCodeBench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 60.4% on SWE-bench Verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks).
Hosting Model: Gemma 4 31B runs locally for $0 API costs, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is hosted via a cloud-hosted API setup.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)
60.4%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
68.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.85Input: $0.30 | Output: $2.50Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
80%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+16.0%)
84.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B
For coding tasks, Gemini 2.5 Flash scores 60.4% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks), while Gemma 4 31B scores 80% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 4 31B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.