Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 70 and 70 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
GoogleGemma 4 31B IT
70/100- ECI142.8
- Price$0.14 / $0.40
- Context262K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Flash
79/100- ECI144.0
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1M
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 31B IT (70) and Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price and context window. 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 priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · Gemma 4 31B IT $0.205 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Gemma 4 31B IT 262,144 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash NextGemma 4 31B IT: Text, Images · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingGemma 4 31B IT and Qwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 83 | 86 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 79/100 | 70/100 |
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 31B ITGoogle | Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 142.8 | 144.0 (best) | — |
| ECI rank | #86 of 148 | #82 of 148 (best) | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 75.8% | 82.3% (best) | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 18.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 73.3% | 84.4% (best) | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 10.4% | 20.3% (best) | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.14 | $0.10 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.40 (best) | $0.40 (best) | $0.50 |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.205 | $0.175 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 30 providers | Official Alibaba API | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | gemma-4-31b-it | qwen3.5-flash | — |
| API providers | 38 (best) | 8 | 5 |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | Feb 23, 2026 | Aug 27, 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 31B IT$2.20
- Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 31B IT, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 31B IT (70) and Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price and context window. 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 31B IT, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemma 4 31B IT costs $0.14 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 30 API providers); Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $0.205 for Gemma 4 31B IT (1.2× as much) and $0.275 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemma 4 31B IT has an ECI of 142.8, Qwen3.5 Flash has an ECI of 144.0 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 31B IT, Qwen3.5 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash Next 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?
Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 31B IT and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 31B IT up to 32,768, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 31B IT accepts text and images; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Gemma 4 31B IT and Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. Gemma 4 31B 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.
Related comparisons
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax · ECI 145.9
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax · ECI 145.9
