ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5 9B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 9B 72, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 70). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Google

    Gemma 4 26B A4B IT

    Released Apr 2, 2026

    70/100
    • ECI141.9
    • Price$0.10 / $0.38
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Gemma 4 26B A4B IT

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 9B

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    72/100
    • ECI139.5
    • Price$0.10 / $0.15
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 9B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 70/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT for raw capability and Qwen3.5 9B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemma 4 26B A4B ITCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 141.9 · Qwen3.5 9B 139.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT $0.17 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameGemma 4 26B A4B IT 262,144 · Qwen3.5 9B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 9BGemma 4 26B A4B IT: Text, Images · Qwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemma 4 26B A4B ITQwen3.5 9B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6865
Price25%8695
Inputs & features15%7080
Context window10%3737
Overall100%70/10072/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5 9B specifications side by side
SpecificationGemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogleQwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)141.9 (best)139.5
ECI rank#93 of 148 (best)#101 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions73.2%79.0% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics82.2% (best)61.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10$0.10
Output$0.38$0.15 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.17$0.113 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 23 providersMedian of 14 providers
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDgemma-4-26b-a4b-it—
API providers26 (best)15
ReleasedApr 2, 2026Feb 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

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
  • Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.5 9B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 70/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT for raw capability and Qwen3.5 9B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT or Qwen3.5 9B?

Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs $0.10 input / $0.38 output per million tokens (median across 23 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.17 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (1.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 141.9 (#93 of 148) and Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.4–143.4 vs 136.5–141.3), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 9B 79.0%, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 73.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 82.2%, Qwen3.5 9B 61.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen3.5 9B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT and Qwen3.5 9B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 26B A4B IT up to 32,768, Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts text and images; Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 9B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is the newest, released Apr 2, 2026. Qwen3.5 9B 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons