ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT

Qwen3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 70 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.7 Flash

    Released Jul 15, 2026

    79/100
    • ECI144.6
    • Price$0.03 / $0.13
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.7 Flash

  2. 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

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.7 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (70). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.7 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.7 Flash 144.6 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 141.9
  • Lowest priceQwen3.7 FlashQwen3.7 Flash $0.055 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT $0.17 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.7 FlashQwen3.7 Flash 1,000,000 · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.7 FlashQwen3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingGemma 4 26B A4B ITPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.7 FlashGemma 4 26B A4B IT
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7168
Price25%10086
Inputs & features15%8070
Context window10%6037
Overall100%79/10070/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.7 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)144.6 (best)141.9
ECI rank#80 of 148 (best)#93 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions82.3% (best)73.2%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics19.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.7% (best)82.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.03 (best)$0.10
Output$0.13 (best)$0.38
Cached input$0.003—
Blended (3:1)$0.055 (best)$0.17
Long-context rateOver 32K: $0.10 / $0.40Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIMedian of 23 providers
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDqwen3.7-flashgemma-4-26b-a4b-it
API providers1226 (best)
ReleasedJul 15, 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.

  • Qwen3.7 Flash$0.56
  • Gemma 4 26B A4B IT$1.76
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.7 Flash or Gemma 4 26B A4B IT?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (70). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Flash or Gemma 4 26B A4B IT?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.13 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $0.055 per million tokens for Qwen3.7 Flash versus $0.17 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT (3.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.7 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.7 Flash 144.6 (#80 of 148) and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 141.9 (#93 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (142.4–147.6 vs 138.4–143.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.7 Flash 82.3%, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 73.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.7 Flash 86.7%, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT 82.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.7 Flash and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.7 Flash 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?

Qwen3.7 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.7 Flash up to 131,072, Gemma 4 26B A4B IT up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video; Gemma 4 26B A4B IT accepts text and images. Qwen3.7 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.7 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the newest, released Jul 15, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT came out Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons