Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

Gemma 4 31B (medium) leads on average score with 6.3 vs 6.2. Gemma 4 31B (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.116 vs $0.139. Gemma 4 31B (medium) is faster at 75.38s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 68.2% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelGemma 4 31B (medium)It has the strongest score in this comparison (6.3) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Metric Gemma 4 31B Gemma 4 31B medium Release: 2026-04-02 Free Available Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.3 6.2
Rank #121 #125
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.0 7.8
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 68.2% 69.7%
Flaky tests 2 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.044 1.361
Total Cost $0.116 $0.139
Input Price $0.140 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $0.400 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 94,992 118,499
Output Tokens 34,468 12,284
Reasoning Tokens 223,278 490,610
Response Time (avg) 75.38s 84.82s
Response Time (max) 437.40s 515.38s
Response Time (total) 1507.52s 1781.22s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#121 Gemma 4 31B

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
45.7s
Tokens
2,696 tok

#125 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 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 31B 4.3 5.8 22.2% 1 219.76s 5,568 11,098 33,212
Qwen3.5-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair