Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Pro 1.0 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B leads Nova Pro 1.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 16.7 to 7.0, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 5.3x less per output token ($0.60 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Nova Pro 1.0 Replace Gemma 4 26B A4B
Nova Pro 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
7.0
Output $/M
$3.20
0
Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
16.7
Output $/M
$0.60
33
vs boards won of 33 shared

Nova Pro 1.0 or Gemma 4 26B A4B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Model ANova Pro 1.0AmazonNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGemma 4 26B A4BGoogleNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
33
Nova Pro 1.0 only
9
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
21
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Pro 1.0 not benchmarked, Gemma 4 26B A4B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 36.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Nova Pro 1.0 21.0% against Gemma 4 26B A4B 65.7%, 44.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Pro 1.0 $3.20 against Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 per million output tokens, 5.3x apart.
Context window
Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Gemma 4 26B A4B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Pro 1.0BarsGemma 4 26B A4BTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General017
All shared boards033
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1360Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured39.3Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.3%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured40.0%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.1%25.0%Gemma 4 26B A4B
WeirdMLNot measured35.2%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ALE-BenchNot measured927.2Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: coding12701446Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: software and IT12711454Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1351Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1362Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.016.7Gemma 4 26B A4B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured141.9Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured2.9Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom14.0%43.6%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)49.9%79.2%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.2%19.3%Gemma 4 26B A4B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured73.2%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12461438Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: expert12111447Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12591448Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1264Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1293Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured82.2%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: math12521470Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: mathematical work12611475Gemma 4 26B A4B
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)69.1%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
MMLU82.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12551446Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12601428Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: legal and government12811457Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: business and finance12291429Gemma 4 26B A4B
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
Design Arena: websites796Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
General benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
IFBench38.1%72.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)21.0%65.7%Gemma 4 26B A4B
DTBenchNot measured74.9%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMCANot measured29.7%Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text12591434Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: instruction following12351420Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: creative writing12121400Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision9801260Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: English12761444Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: non-English12331421Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Chinese12441495Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: German1243Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1200Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1203Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: French12711460Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Spanish11821415Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Russian12401434Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: multi-turn12461441Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: longer queries12551427Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: writing and language12471405Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12101403Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: English9871256Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1312Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1268Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1272Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1297Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1191Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1256Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Gemma 4 26B A4BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.0024Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B$0.0004Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.050Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B$0.0093Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.192Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B$0.036Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Pro 1.0 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
SpecificationAmazon Nova Pro 1.0Google Gemma 4 26B A4B
MakerAmazonGoogle
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024April 3, 2026
Context window300K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.80$0.15
Output $/Mtok$3.20$0.60
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Pro 1.0 better than Gemma 4 26B A4B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Nova Pro 1.0 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Nova Pro 1.0 costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Pro 1.0 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Nova Pro 1.0, with 300K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Pro 1.0 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B comparison based on?

33 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Pro 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Gemma 4 26B A4B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next