Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 4.5V

Gemma 4 26B A4B leads GLM 4.5V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 16.7 to 7.6, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 3.0x less per output token ($0.60 vs $1.80 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 4 26B A4B Replace GLM 4.5V
Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
54.7
Output $/M
$0.60
35
GLM 4.5VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
0
vs boards won of 35 shared

Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 4.5V: which to pick

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

Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.80 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 66K tokens).

Model AGemma 4 26B A4BGoogleNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.5VZ.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
35
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
20
GLM 4.5V only
6
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
Gemma 4 26B A4B not benchmarked, GLM 4.5V not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 22.0 points apart on average over 17 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Gemma 4 26B A4B 65.7% against GLM 4.5V 0.0%, 65.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 against GLM 4.5V $1.80 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
Context window
Gemma 4 26B A4B takes 262K tokens, GLM 4.5V 66K.

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
CategoryGemma 4 26B A4BBarsGLM 4.5VTies
Coding30
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning70
Math20
Knowledge40
General170
All shared boards350
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
LMArena WebDev1360Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
AA Coding Index39.3Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured60.4%Only GLM 4.5V measured
SciCode40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%6.8%Gemma 4 26B A4B
WeirdML35.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ALE-Bench927.2Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: coding14461347Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: software and IT14541353Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena WebDev: React1351Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1362Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
AA Intelligence Index16.77.6Gemma 4 26B A4B
Epoch Capabilities Index141.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
AA Agentic Index2.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom43.6%22.5%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%68.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)19.3%6.3%Gemma 4 26B A4B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)73.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14381335Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: expert14471353Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14481357Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: diagrams12641151Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: homework12931163Gemma 4 26B A4B
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured59.8%Only GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured73.0Only GLM 4.5V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.0%Only GLM 4.5V measured
OTIS Mock AIME82.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: math14701354Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: mathematical work14751336Gemma 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 index40
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.8%Only GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: science14461330Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281349Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: legal and government14571338Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: business and finance14291309Gemma 4 26B A4B
FACTS Benchmark Suite42.7%Not measuredOnly 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
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
General benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
IFBench72.4%34.2%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.7%0.0%Gemma 4 26B A4B
DTBench74.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMCA29.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text14341333Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: instruction following14201311Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: creative writing14001294Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision12601154Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: English14441362Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: non-English14211303Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Chinese14951337Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: French1460Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish14151336Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Russian14341298Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1302Only GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14411333Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: longer queries14271305Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: writing and language14051302Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14031303Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: English12561183Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: Chinese1312Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: reading text12681151Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: humor1272Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1297Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1191Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1256Not measuredOnly 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
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 4.5VLeader
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$0.0004Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.0015Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 4 26B A4B$0.0093Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.035Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 4 26B A4B$0.036Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.138Exceeds the context window

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 Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 4.5V
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 4 26B A4BZ.ai GLM 4.5V
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 3, 2026August 11, 2025
Context window262K66K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.60$1.80
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than GLM 4.5V for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.80 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 66K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 4.5V?

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM 4.5V costs $0.60 and $1.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 4.5V?

Gemma 4 26B A4B, with 262K tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 4.5V comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 4.5V's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next