Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 71 and 69 on our weighted score, though Laguna S 2.1 is 29% cheaper per token.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B IT
71/100- ECI141.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.38
- Context262K
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Flash
79/100- ECI144.0
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1M
Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (71) and Laguna S 2.1 (69). It leads on inputs & features. Laguna S 2.1 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT $0.17 · Qwen3.5 Flash $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B IT: Text, Images · Laguna S 2.1: Text · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingGemma 4 26B A4B IT and Laguna S 2.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 93 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 35 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 71/100 | 69/100 | 79/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle | Laguna S 2.1Poolside | Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.9 | — | 144.0 (best) |
| ECI rank | #93 of 148 | — | #82 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 73.2% | — | 82.3% (best) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | — | 18.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 82.2% | — | 84.4% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | — | 20.3% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.38 | $0.20 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.17 | $0.125 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 23 providers | Median of 4 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | gemma-4-26b-a4b-it | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 | qwen3.5-flash |
| API providers | 26 (best) | 6 | 8 |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | Jul 21, 2026 | Feb 23, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT$1.76
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
- Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (71) and Laguna S 2.1 (69). It leads on inputs & features. Laguna S 2.1 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Laguna S 2.1 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Poolside). Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs $0.10 input / $0.38 output per million tokens (median across 23 API providers); Qwen3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.125 per million tokens for Laguna S 2.1 versus $0.17 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (1.4× as much) and $0.175 for Qwen3.5 Flash (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has an ECI of 141.9, Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 Flash has an ECI of 144.0.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT, Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna S 2.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.5 Flash and 262,144 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT up to 32,768, Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts text and images; Laguna S 2.1 accepts text; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Laguna S 2.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Laguna S 2.1 is the newest, released Jul 21, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT came out Apr 2, 2026; Qwen3.5 Flash came out Feb 23, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
