| Signal | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | Delta | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 72 | +5 | |
Pricing | 100 | +0 | |
Context window size | 86 | -9 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 75 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
73.4
current score
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
right now
69.2
current score
Alibaba
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) saves you $19.50/month
That's $234.00/year compared to Qwen3.5-Flash at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | Qwen3.5-Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 73 | 69 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Rank | #58 | #85 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Quality Rank | #58 | #85 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Adoption Rank | #58 | #85 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Parameters | 26B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 1000K | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Pricing | Free | $0.07/$0.26/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 83 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Benchmarks | 72 | 67 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Context window size | 86 | 95 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 80 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 73/100 (rank #58), placing it in the top 80% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 69/100 (rank #85), placing it in the top 71% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 4-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Compare the cost per quality point to find the best value for your specific workload.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (73/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) has a moderate advantage with a 4.200000000000003-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Qwen3.5-Flash has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
100% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) saves you $0.4290/month
That's 100% cheaper than Qwen3.5-Flash at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 32,768 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Apr 3, 2026 | Feb 25, 2026 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) scores 73/100 (rank #58) compared to Qwen3.5-Flash's 69/100 (rank #85), giving it a 4-point advantage. Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3.5-Flash may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) is ranked #58 and Qwen3.5-Flash is ranked #85 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) is cheaper at $0.00/M output tokens vs Qwen3.5-Flash's $0.26/M output tokens - 260.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) at $0.00/M vs Qwen3.5-Flash at $0.07/M.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)'s 262,144 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.