Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemma 4 31B

We compare each of the 12 tests from our suite (scores are our 1–5 internal grades and rankings are the displays from our testing):

• Long context: Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 5 vs Gemma 4 31B's 4 — A wins; A is tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 36 other models out of 55 tested"). This means A is stronger at retrieval and accuracy across >30k token contexts.
• Constrained rewriting: Gemma 4 31B scores 4 vs A's 3 — B wins; B ranks 6 of 53 while A ranks 31 of 53. For tight-character compression tasks, B is meaningfully better.
• Safety calibration: B scores 2 vs A's 1 — B wins; B is rank 12 of 55 versus A's rank 32. In our testing B is more likely to refuse harmful prompts and better at permissive/safe distinctions.
• Agentic planning: B scores 5 vs A's 4 — B wins; B is tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 14 other models out of 54 tested") while A is rank 16. For goal decomposition and recovery, B is stronger in our agentic planning tests.
• Structured output: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st with 24 others; both reliably follow JSON/schema constraints in our format checks.
• Strategic analysis: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st; both handle nuanced tradeoffs with numbers well in our tests.
• Creative problem solving: tie at 4/4 — both rank 9 of 54; both generate non-obvious feasible ideas similarly.
• Tool calling: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st; both choose functions and sequence arguments accurately in our function-selection tests.
• Faithfulness: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st; both stick to source material in our fidelity checks.
• Classification: tie at 4/4 — both tied for 1st; both categorize and route accurately.
• Persona consistency: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st; both maintain character and resist injection in our tests.
• Multilingual: tie at 5/5 — both tied for 1st; both produce equivalent-quality output in non-English tasks in our suite. Overall in our testing Gemma 4 31B wins 3 tests (constrained rewriting, safety calibration, agentic planning) while Gemma 4 26B A4B wins 1 (long context); the remaining 8 tests tie. Practically: pick B when you need safer refusals, constrained compression, or top-tier agentic planning; pick A when you need maximum long-context retrieval and slightly lower cost.

Per the payload, Gemma 4 26B A4B charges $0.08 input and $0.35 output per mTok; Gemma 4 31B charges $0.13 input and $0.38 output per mTok. That yields these example costs (assuming a 50/50 input/output token split):

• 1M tokens/month (500k input + 500k output): Gemma 4 26B A4B = $215; Gemma 4 31B = $255 (difference $40, 15.7% higher for 31B).
• 10M tokens/month: Gemma 4 26B A4B = $2,150; Gemma 4 31B = $2,550 (difference $400).
• 100M tokens/month: Gemma 4 26B A4B = $21,500; Gemma 4 31B = $25,500 (difference $4,000). If your workload is dominated by output tokens (e.g., long generated responses), the higher output rate ($0.35 vs $0.38) amplifies the gap. Teams with multi-million token usage should care: at 100M tokens the $4,000 monthly delta is material to cloud budgets; small experiments (1M or less) will see only modest dollar differences.

Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if: you need the best long-context retrieval (scores 5 vs 4), are optimizing cost (about $40/month less per 1M tokens at a 50/50 split), or you run large-context multimodal retrieval workflows. Choose Gemma 4 31B if: you run agentic systems, require better safety calibration, or need stronger constrained-rewriting performance (B wins those tests and ranks better in our suite). If you need both, test with your prompts — both models tie on structured output, tool calling, faithfulness, classification, persona consistency, multilingual, creative problem solving, and strategic analysis.