Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) and Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Qwen) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 23 September 2026

As of 23 September 2026, Gemma 4 26B A4B holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#38 vs #41); and Gemma 4 26B A4B is 11.7× cheaper per output token ($0.30/1M vs $3.50/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #38 against #41 (70.2 vs 69.7 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.30/1M output tokens against $3.50/1M, about 11.7× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.09/1M against $0.55/1M.
  • you want provider choice — 12 listed API providers against 10.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Gemma 4 26B A4B was listed 3 April 2026, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 16 February 2026.

Choose Qwen3.5 397B A17B if…

  • Arena coding is your yardstick — 1491 against 1481.
  • AA τ²-Bench Telecom is your yardstick — 95.6% against 40.4%.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 29.0% against 11.5%.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
FieldGemma 4 26B A4BGoogleQwen3.5 397B A17BQwen
ModelCap Index position#38#41
Index score70.269.7
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.09$0.55
Output price / 1M tokens$0.30$3.50
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens236K236K
API providers listed1210
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesImage, Text, VideoText, Image, Video
First listed3 April 202616 February 2026
PublisherGoogleQwen

Evidence: 2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards · 3 public benchmark observations across 3 boards. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Public benchmark boards where Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a published result
BoardGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.5 397B A17BLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14811466–149614911486–1496Qwen3.5 397B A17B
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis—18.4intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecifiedOnly one result
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis40.4%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)":reasoning=false95.6%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning)":reasoning=trueQwen3.5 397B A17B
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis11.5%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)":reasoning=false29.0%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning)":reasoning=trueQwen3.5 397B A17B

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B: common questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Gemma 4 26B A4B ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 23 September 2026: #38 against #41. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B cheaper than Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on output tokens: $0.30/1M against $3.50/1M. Input tokens are $0.09/1M for Gemma 4 26B A4B and $0.55/1M for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.33 for Gemma 4 26B A4B versus $2.85 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 88.4% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Arena coding: Gemma 4 26B A4B 1481, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 1491 — Qwen3.5 397B A17B leads.

Are Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.5 397B A17B open-weight models?

Gemma 4 26B A4B: Open weights. Qwen3.5 397B A17B: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

ModelCap currently lists 12 API providers for Gemma 4 26B A4B and 10 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 23 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further