Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus leads Gemma 4 26B A4B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 25.2 to 16.7, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 2.1x less per output token ($0.60 vs $1.28 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 47 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 4 26B A4B Replace Qwen3.7 Plus
Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
54.7
Output $/M
$0.60
4
Qwen3.7 PlusQwen
Coding
33.2
Overall
54.0
Output $/M
$1.28
43
vs boards won of 47 shared

Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.7 Plus: which to pick

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 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 2.1x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.28 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: math or LMArena Text: mathematical work, where it leads.

Model AGemma 4 26B A4BGoogleNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.7 PlusQwen33.2/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
47
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
8
Qwen3.7 Plus only
28
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, Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 32.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 4 26B A4B 43.6% against Qwen3.7 Plus 93.0%, 49.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 against Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 per million output tokens, 2.1x apart.
Context window
Gemma 4 26B A4B takes 262K tokens, Qwen3.7 Plus 1M.

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 A4BBarsQwen3.7 PlusTies
Coding05
Intelligence02
Agentic work02
Reasoning08
Math21
Knowledge13
General122
All shared boards443
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
LMArena WebDev1360Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
AA Coding Index39.355.9Qwen3.7 Plus
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured12.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured54.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SciCode40.0%46.1%Qwen3.7 Plus
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%47.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierCodeNot measured10.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
WeirdML35.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
ALE-Bench927.2Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Text: coding14461473Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: software and IT14541473Qwen3.7 Plus
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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index16.725.2Qwen3.7 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index141.9147.0Qwen3.7 Plus
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Agentic Index2.917.5Qwen3.7 Plus
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured10.5%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured16.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom43.6%93.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0Not measured2.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)19.3%35.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)73.2%87.9%Qwen3.7 Plus
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14381460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: expert14471466Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14481460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: diagrams12641292Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: homework12931295Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Math benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
OTIS Mock AIME82.2%93.3%Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured34.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: math14701467Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: mathematical work14751470Gemma 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 index13
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: science14461464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: legal and government14571451Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Text: business and finance14291435Qwen3.7 Plus
FACTS Benchmark Suite42.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1269Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1258Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1261Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1276Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1238Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1269Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1208Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1143Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index122
General benchmarks for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured39.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured53.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
IFBench72.4%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.7%73.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
DTBench74.9%84.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
LMCA29.7%37.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14341454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: instruction following14201439Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: creative writing14001438Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision12601278Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: English14441458Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: non-English14211445Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Chinese14951509Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1471Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1412Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1413Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: French14601472Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Spanish14151457Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Russian14341457Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1449Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14411459Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: longer queries14271454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: writing and language14051437Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14031422Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: English12561280Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: Chinese13121332Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: reading text12681288Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: humor12721261Gemma 4 26B A4B
LMArena Vision: captioning1297Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1191Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 26B A4B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing12561258Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena DocumentNot measured1444Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.0010Fits 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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.020Fits 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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.077Fits 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 4 26B A4BQwen3.7 Plus
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 3, 2026June 3, 2026
Context window262K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.32
Output $/Mtok$0.60$1.28
Coding indexNot benchmarked33.2
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than Qwen3.7 Plus for coding?

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 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 2.1x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.28 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: math or LMArena Text: mathematical work, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 and $1.28. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.7 Plus comparison based on?

47 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 Qwen3.7 Plus's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next