Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy-MT2-1.8B vs Qwen3.5 4B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 4B 78, Gemma 4 E2B IT 76, Hy-MT2-1.8B 49). The right pick depends on what you value most.
GoogleGemma 4 E2B IT
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.08
- Context131K
TencentHy-MT2-1.8B
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.044 / $0.177
- Context8K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 4B
78/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.07
- Context262K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 4B 78/100, Gemma 4 E2B IT 76/100, Hy-MT2-1.8B 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 4B on price and Qwen3.5 4B for long inputs. 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 4BQwen3.5 4B $0.048 · Gemma 4 E2B IT $0.05 · Hy-MT2-1.8B $0.077 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 4BQwen3.5 4B 262,144 · Gemma 4 E2B IT 131,072 · Hy-MT2-1.8B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 4 E2B IT and Qwen3.5 4BGemma 4 E2B IT: Text, Images, Audio · Hy-MT2-1.8B: Text · Qwen3.5 4B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 E2B IT | Hy-MT2-1.8B | Qwen3.5 4B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 98 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 0 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 0 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 76/100 | 49/100 | 78/100 |
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 E2B ITGoogle | Hy-MT2-1.8BTencent | Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | — | 55.8% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.04 (best) | $0.044 | $0.04 (best) |
| Output | $0.08 | $0.177 | $0.07 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.05 | $0.077 | $0.048 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 3 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 4,096 tokens | 81,920 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 | 5 (best) |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | May 21, 2026 | Mar 2, 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 E2B IT$0.56
- Hy-MT2-1.8B$0.794
- Qwen3.5 4B$0.54
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 E2B IT, Hy-MT2-1.8B or Qwen3.5 4B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 4B 78/100, Gemma 4 E2B IT 76/100, Hy-MT2-1.8B 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 4B on price and Qwen3.5 4B for long inputs. 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 E2B IT, Hy-MT2-1.8B or Qwen3.5 4B?
Qwen3.5 4B is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Gemma 4 E2B IT costs $0.04 input / $0.08 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Hy-MT2-1.8B costs $0.044 input / $0.177 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.048 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 4B versus $0.05 for Gemma 4 E2B IT (1.1× as much) and $0.077 for Hy-MT2-1.8B (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemma 4 E2B IT has not been scored yet, Hy-MT2-1.8B has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 4B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 E2B IT, Hy-MT2-1.8B and Qwen3.5 4B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-1.8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 4B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Gemma 4 E2B IT and 8,192 for Hy-MT2-1.8B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 E2B IT up to 8,192, Hy-MT2-1.8B up to 4,096, Qwen3.5 4B up to 81,920 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 E2B IT accepts text, images and audio; Hy-MT2-1.8B accepts text; Qwen3.5 4B accepts text, images and video. Gemma 4 E2B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Hy-MT2-1.8B is the newest, released May 21, 2026. Gemma 4 E2B IT came out Apr 2, 2026; Qwen3.5 4B came out Mar 2, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
