Model comparison
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.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)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.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.0675 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.23 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Not comparable
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 Qwen3.8 Max leads
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 | — |
Frequently asked questions
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.