Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs MiniMax M2.5

MiniMax M2.5 leads Gemma 4 26B A4B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 16.7, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 2.0x less per output token ($0.60 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 36 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 4 26B A4B Replace MiniMax M2.5
Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
54.7
Output $/M
$0.60
26
MiniMax M2.5MiniMax
Coding
37.2
Overall
37.3
Output $/M
$1.20
10
vs boards won of 36 shared

Gemma 4 26B A4B or MiniMax M2.5: which to pick

Only MiniMax M2.5 has a coding score, 37.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 4 26B A4B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Model AGemma 4 26B A4BGoogleNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMiniMax M2.5MiniMax37.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.62 per solved task
Shared results
36
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
19
MiniMax M2.5 only
35
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, MiniMax M2.5 37.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 51.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 4 26B A4B 43.6% against MiniMax M2.5 95.3%, 51.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 against MiniMax M2.5 $1.20 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Gemma 4 26B A4B takes 262K tokens, MiniMax M2.5 205K.

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 A4BBarsMiniMax M2.5Ties
Coding34
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning32
Math20
Knowledge40
General141
All shared boards2610
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index34
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured75.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured68.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev13601386MiniMax M2.5
AA Coding Index39.3Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured74.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured14.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SciCode40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%34.8%MiniMax M2.5
Terminal-BenchNot measured42.7%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
WeirdML35.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ALE-Bench927.2618.2Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: coding14461380Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: software and IT14541383Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena WebDev: React13511374MiniMax M2.5
LMArena WebDev: HTML13621414MiniMax M2.5
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnANot measured10.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: RefactoringNot measured19.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Test WritingNot measured18.6%Only MiniMax M2.5 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 MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index16.722.8MiniMax M2.5
Epoch Capabilities Index141.9146.6MiniMax M2.5
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
AA Agentic Index2.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom43.6%95.3%MiniMax M2.5
Vending-Bench 2Not measured-$23Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured82.1%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%84.8%MiniMax M2.5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)19.3%20.5%MiniMax M2.5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)73.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ARC-AGINot measured63.7%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured4.9%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14381372Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: expert14471378Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14481384Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: diagrams1264Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: homework1293Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured55.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
AIMENot measured88.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME82.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ProofBenchNot measured4.0%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: math14701378Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: mathematical work14751378Gemma 4 26B A4B
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured80.1%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.0%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured59.6%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured68.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: science14461369Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281357Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: legal and government14571366Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: business and finance14291356Gemma 4 26B A4B
FACTS Benchmark Suite42.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1222Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1170Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1176Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1172Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1170Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1207Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1150Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index141
General benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
IFBench72.4%71.6%Gemma 4 26B A4B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.7%73.3%MiniMax M2.5
DTBench74.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMCA29.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
CL-benchNot measured11.4%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
CL-bench LifeNot measured6.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text14341359Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: instruction following14201353Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: creative writing14001331Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision1260Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: English14441380Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: non-English14211338Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Chinese14951393Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1361Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1171Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1233Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: French14601363Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Spanish14151353Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: Russian14341359Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1334Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14411364Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: longer queries14271366Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: writing and language14051345Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14031329Gemma 4 26B A4B
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 17 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 MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5Leader
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
MiniMax M2.5$0.0009Fits 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
MiniMax M2.5$0.019Fits 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
MiniMax M2.5$0.072Exceeds 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 MiniMax M2.5
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 4 26B A4BMiniMax M2.5
MakerGoogleMiniMax
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 3, 2026February 12, 2026
Context window262K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.60$1.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked37.2
Independent measurements behind it13
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.62
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than MiniMax M2.5 for coding?

Only MiniMax M2.5 has a coding score, 37.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 4 26B A4B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MiniMax M2.5?

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MiniMax M2.5?

Gemma 4 26B A4B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs MiniMax M2.5 comparison based on?

36 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 MiniMax M2.5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next