ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 31B IT

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 9B 72, Gemma 4 31B IT 69). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. 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

  2. Google

    Gemma 4 31B IT

    Released Apr 2, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI142.8
    • Price$0.14 / $0.40
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Gemma 4 31B IT

  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 3 points (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemma 4 31B IT 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemma 4 31B 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 31B ITCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 4 31B IT 142.8 · Qwen3.5 9B 139.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · Gemma 4 31B IT $0.205 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.5 9B 262,144 · Gemma 4 31B IT 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · Gemma 4 31B IT: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 9BGemma 4 31B IT
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6569
Price25%9583
Inputs & features15%8070
Context window10%3737
Overall100%72/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 31B IT specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)139.5142.8 (best)
ECI rank#101 of 148#86 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions79.0% (best)75.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics61.7%73.3% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—10.4%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.14
Output$0.15 (best)$0.40
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.113 (best)$0.205
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 14 providersMedian of 30 providers
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model ID—gemma-4-31b-it
API providers1538 (best)
ReleasedFeb 23, 2026Apr 2, 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.

  • Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
  • Gemma 4 31B IT$2.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or Gemma 4 31B IT?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemma 4 31B IT 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemma 4 31B 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 31B IT?

Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Gemma 4 31B IT costs $0.14 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 30 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 $0.205 for Gemma 4 31B IT (1.8× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 4 31B IT 142.8 (#86 of 148) and Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (140.3–144.9 vs 136.5–141.3), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 9B 79.0%, Gemma 4 31B IT 75.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemma 4 31B IT 73.3%, 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 31B IT yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemma 4 31B 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 31B IT share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, Gemma 4 31B IT up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; Gemma 4 31B 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 31B 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