GoogleGemma 4 26B A4BVSGoogleGemma 4 31B
Our Take
We recommend selecting the model size (25.2B vs 30.7B) that fits best within your local hardware's VRAM constraints. Both models run locally for zero API costs and offer comparable performance.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 82.3% on reasoning compared to 84.3% for Gemma 4 31B.
Coding Performance: Both models were evaluated on the LiveCodeBench benchmark. Gemma 4 31B scored 80%, while Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 77.1% (+2.9% gap).
Hardware Footprint: Gemma 4 26B A4B has 25.2B parameters, while Gemma 4 31B has 30.7B parameters.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
77.1%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
82.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)Winner (+2.9%)
80%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+2.0%)
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 Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 31B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 80% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions) compared to Gemma 4 26B A4B which scores 77.1%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemma 4 26B A4B 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.