Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Gemma 4 26B A4B leads on average score with 5.6 vs 5.5. Local hardware cost was not measured, so cost comparisons are unavailable. Qwen3.8 27B is faster at 3.12s vs 7.58s, with pass rates of 43.9% vs 40.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-15

Rank
#204
Total Output Tokens
15,781
Response Time (avg)
7.58s
Total Cost
$0.023
Rank
#211
Total Output Tokens
11,445
Response Time (avg)
3.12s
Total Cost
N/A
Recommended model Qwen3.8 27B

Its score stays close to the best score here (5.5 vs 5.6), while responding about 2.4x faster than Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Detailed comparison

Metric Gemma 4 26B A4B Gemma 4 26B A4B none Release: 2026-04-03 Free Available Qwen3.8 27B Qwen3.8 27B none Release: 2026-08-14
Score 5.6 5.5
Rank #204 #211
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.6 10.0
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 43.9% 40.9%
Flaky tests 1 0
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.208 N/A
Total Cost $0.023 N/A
Input Price $0.120 / 1M N/A
Output Price $0.400 / 1M N/A
Total Input Tokens 131,257 122,463
Output Tokens 15,781 11,445
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 7.58s 3.12s
Response Time (max) 57.10s 44.76s
Response Time (total) 166.82s 68.69s
Parameters 25.2B total (3.8B active) 27.3B
Availability Open source Weights available

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#204 Gemma 4 26B A4B

none
Cost
$0.001
Time
39.5s
Tokens
790 tok

#211 Qwen3.8 27B

none
Cost
N/A
Time
23.9s
Tokens
1,922 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 4.16s 7,736 476 0
Qwen3.8 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.19s 7,911 408 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair