Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
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.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
72/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B IT
70/100- ECI141.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.38
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
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 sameQwen3.5 9B 262,144 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 9B | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 65 | 68 |
| Price | 25% | 95 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 70/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.5 | 141.9 (best) |
| ECI rank | #101 of 148 | #93 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 79.0% (best) | 73.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 61.7% | 82.2% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $0.38 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.113 (best) | $0.17 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Median of 23 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | gemma-4-26b-a4b-it |
| API providers | 15 | 26 (best) |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Apr 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.
- Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT$1.76
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or Gemma 4 26B A4B IT?
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, Qwen3.5 9B or Gemma 4 26B A4B IT?
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 Qwen3.5 9B and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 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?
Qwen3.5 9B and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts text and images. 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-5 NanoThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 9B vs GPT-5 NanoOpenAI · ECI 139.4
- Qwen3.5 9B vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 144.0
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GPT-5 NanoOpenAI · ECI 139.4
