Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3 32B

Gemma 4 31B leads Qwen3 32B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 14.7 to 7.3, at about the same output price ($0.40 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 36 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemma 4 31BGoogle
Coding
39.0
Overall
42.1
Output $/M
$0.40
36
Qwen3 32BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
40.8
Output $/M
$0.40
0
vs boards won of 36 shared

Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3 32B: which to pick

Only Gemma 4 31B has a coding score, 39.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 32B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
36
Gemma 4 31B only
35
Qwen3 32B only
9
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 31B 39.0 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3 32B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 35.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Gemma 4 31B 69.7% against Qwen3 32B 0.0%, 69.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Both cost $0.40 per million output tokens.
Context window
Gemma 4 31B takes 262K tokens, Qwen3 32B 131K.

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 31BBarsQwen3 32BTies
Coding40
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning70
Math30
Knowledge40
General150
All shared boards360
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured40.0%Only Qwen3 32B measured
LiveBench coding49.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena WebDev1367Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
AA Coding Index43.4Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured54.6%Only Qwen3 32B measured
SciCode45.5%36.0%Gemma 4 31B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)36.4%3.0%Gemma 4 31B
WeirdML52.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
ALE-Bench925.5Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: coding14591357Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: software and IT14631366Gemma 4 31B
LMArena WebDev: React1359Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1380Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
SciCode8.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.77.3Gemma 4 31B
Epoch Capabilities Index143.0138.4Gemma 4 31B
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
AA Agentic Index4.2Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LiveBench research44.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LiveBench browser4.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LiveBench long agentic13.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom65.5%29.8%Gemma 4 31B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured48.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured10.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
LiveBench reasoning68.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)85.7%66.8%Gemma 4 31B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)23.6%7.4%Gemma 4 31B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)75.8%65.7%Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: hard prompts14481334Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: expert14641362Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14561350Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Vision: diagrams1283Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: homework1310Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark63.5%48.7%Gemma 4 31B
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Math benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured73.0Only Qwen3 32B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.0%Only Qwen3 32B measured
OTIS Mock AIME73.3%66.9%Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: math14631399Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: mathematical work14651420Gemma 4 31B
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 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.6%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured79.8%Only Qwen3 32B measured
SimpleQA Verified10.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: science14571372Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14511368Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: legal and government14381324Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: business and finance14301318Gemma 4 31B
FACTS Benchmark Suite45.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
LiveBench design58.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index150
General benchmarks for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
LiveBench data analysis53.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
SAGE (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
IFBench75.6%36.3%Gemma 4 31B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.7%0.0%Gemma 4 31B
DTBench82.7%67.5%Gemma 4 31B
LMCA39.3%17.3%Gemma 4 31B
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured74.2%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Surface Evolver Bench30.6%Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text14431340Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: instruction following14331305Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: creative writing14171297Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Vision1276Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: English14511359Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: non-English14301317Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: Chinese14751357Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1341Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: French1436Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1442Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: Russian14601311Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: Polish1433Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14521331Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: longer queries14461327Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: writing and language14321298Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14051279Gemma 4 31B
LMArena Vision: English1271Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1326Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1282Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: humor1280Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1218Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1226Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1285Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B measured
LMArena Document1425Not measuredOnly Gemma 4 31B 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 31B and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3 32BLeader
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 31B$0.0003Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.0003Fits in one request

Same cost

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 4 31B$0.0082Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.0082Fits in one request

Same cost

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 4 31B$0.032Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.032Exceeds the context window

Same cost

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 31B and Qwen3 32B
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 4 31BQwen3 32B
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 2, 2026April 28, 2025
Context window262K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.14$0.14
Output $/Mtok$0.40$0.40
Coding index39.0Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 4 31B better than Qwen3 32B for coding?

Only Gemma 4 31B has a coding score, 39.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3 32B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3 32B?

Gemma 4 31B costs $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3 32B?

Gemma 4 31B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3 32B comparison based on?

36 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 4 31B's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 32B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next