Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 16.7x less per output token than Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 ($0.60 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 or Gemma 4 26B A4B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 only
- 12
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 52
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Gemma 4 26B A4B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 16.7.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Gemma 4 26B A4B has a AA Agentic Index result, 2.9.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 $0.0063, Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 not benchmarked, Gemma 4 26B A4B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 5.5 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run): Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 84.8% against Gemma 4 26B A4B 73.2%, 11.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 $10.00 against Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 per million output tokens, 16.7x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 takes 1.05M 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.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Bars | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 83.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1360 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 39.3 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 79.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 77.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 40.0% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 25.0% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| GSO-Bench | 3.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 927.2 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1446 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1454 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1351 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1362 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| SciCode | 7.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 16.7 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 141.9 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 2.9 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 43.6% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| METR time horizons | 55.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 83.6% | 79.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.9% | 19.3% | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 84.8% | 73.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| VPCT | 46.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1438 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1447 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1448 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1264 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1293 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 82.2% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1470 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1475 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1446 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1428 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1457 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1429 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 42.7% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index26 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 72.4% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 65.7% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 74.9% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.7% | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1434 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1420 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1400 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1260 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1444 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1421 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1495 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1460 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1415 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1434 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1441 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1427 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1405 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1403 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1256 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1312 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1268 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1272 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | Not measured | 1297 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1191 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1256 | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Google Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 | Google Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | ||
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | June 5, 2025 | April 3, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.25 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.60 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 better than Gemma 4 26B A4B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05'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.