Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2 Thinking

Kimi K2 Thinking leads Gemma 4 26B A4B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.0 to 16.7, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 4.2x less per output token ($0.60 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
54.7
Output $/M
$0.60
2
Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
8
vs boards won of 10 shared

Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2 Thinking: 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 4.2x cheaper ($0.60 vs $2.50 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Shared results
10
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
45
Kimi K2 Thinking only
20
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Kimi K2 Thinking not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 49.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 4 26B A4B 43.6% against Kimi K2 Thinking 93.0%, 49.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 against Kimi K2 Thinking $2.50 per million output tokens, 4.2x apart.
Context window
Both take 262K tokens.

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 A4BBarsKimi K2 ThinkingTies
Coding12
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General11
All shared boards28
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured63.4%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev1360Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
AA Coding Index39.3Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured63.1%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured60.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured85.3%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
SciCode40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%31.1%Kimi K2 Thinking
Terminal-BenchNot measured35.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
WeirdML35.2%42.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
ALE-Bench927.2597.5Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: coding1446Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1454Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
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 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AA Intelligence Index16.722.0Kimi K2 Thinking
Epoch Capabilities Index141.9145.8Kimi K2 Thinking
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AA Agentic Index2.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom43.6%93.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
METR time horizonsNot measured59.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured78.5%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%83.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)19.3%23.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)73.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1438Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: expert1447Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1448Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1264Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: homework1293Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AIMENot measured85.4%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured90.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
AA Math IndexNot measured94.7Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured94.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
OTIS Mock AIME82.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: math1470Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1475Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
MMLU ProNot measured81.1%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured65.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured60.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.8%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena Text: science1446Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1428Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1457Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1429Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
FACTS Benchmark Suite42.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1113Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
General benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
IFBench72.4%68.1%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.7%72.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
DTBench74.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMCA29.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
CL-benchNot measured17.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena Text1434Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1420Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1400Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision1260Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: English1444Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: non-English1421Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1495Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: French1460Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1415Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: Russian1434Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1441Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1427Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1405Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1403Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: English1256Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1312Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1268Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
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 Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2 ThinkingLeader
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
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.0019Fits 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
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.037Fits 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
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.145Fits 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 Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2 Thinking
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 4 26B A4BMoonshotAI Kimi K2 Thinking
MakerGoogleMoonshot AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 3, 2026November 6, 2025
Context window262K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.60$2.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.61
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than Kimi K2 Thinking 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 4.2x cheaper ($0.60 vs $2.50 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2 Thinking?

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Kimi K2 Thinking costs $0.60 and $2.50. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2 Thinking only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2 Thinking?

Neither: both take 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2 Thinking comparison based on?

10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Kimi K2 Thinking's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next