| Signal | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Delta | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 72 | +72 | |
Pricing | 100 | +1 | |
Context window size | 86 | -9 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 90 | +10 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
30
days higher
0
days
0
days higher
Alibaba
Gemma 4 26B A4B saves you $71.00/month
That's $852.00/year compared to Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 73 | 40 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Rank | #45 | #143 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Quality Rank | #45 | #143 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Adoption Rank | #45 | #143 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Parameters | 26B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 1000K | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 |
| Pricing | $0.13/$0.40/M | $0.26/$1.56/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 83 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Benchmarks | 72 | -- | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Pricing | 100 | 98 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Context window size | 86 | 95 | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
| Output Capacity | 90 | 80 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
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%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 73/100 (rank #45), placing it in the top 85% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #143), placing it in the top 51% of all 290 models tracked.
Gemma 4 26B A4B has a 33-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B offers 71% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $7.95/month with Gemma 4 26B A4B vs $27.30/month with Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 - a $19.35 monthly difference.
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 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 ($0.40/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 clearly outperforms Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 with a significant 33.400000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, Gemma 4 26B A4B is the stronger choice. However, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Gemma 4 26B A4B
71% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Gemma 4 26B A4B saves you $1.63/month
That's 69% cheaper than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 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 | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 262,144 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Apr 3, 2026 | Feb 16, 2026 |
Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 73/100 (rank #45) compared to Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15's 40/100 (rank #143), giving it a 33-point advantage. Gemma 4 26B A4B is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is ranked #45 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 is ranked #143 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 is cheaper at $0.40/M output tokens vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15's $1.56/M output tokens - 3.9x more expensive. Input token pricing: Gemma 4 26B A4B at $0.13/M vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 at $0.26/M.
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to Gemma 4 26B A4B 's 262,144 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.