Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Gemma 4 26B A4B by Google and Qwen3.6 27B by Alibaba represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, both models offer identical input token rates. On output generation, costs are matched. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, both models provide an identical memory horizon with 262K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Gemma 4 26B A4B leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
任意のAIモデルを切り替えて比較
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
オープンウェイトモデルGoogle が提供する Gemma 4 26B A4B は、最大 262K トークンのコンテキストウィンドウを備え、入力 $0/100万トークン・出力 $0/100万トークンで利用可能な、コーディング・推論・業務自動化向け AI モデルです。
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
262.1K tokens
61%
Qwen3.6 27B
オープンウェイトモデルAlibaba が提供する Qwen3.6 27B は、最大 262K トークンのコンテキストウィンドウを備え、入力 $0/100万トークン・出力 $0/100万トークンで利用可能な、コーディング・推論・業務自動化向け AI モデルです。
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
262.1K tokens
N/A
ひと目でわかる主な違い
- Both models cost the same under this workload — choose on capability, not price.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster at 160 tok/s vs 92 tok/s.
| Feature | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 74 | 77 |
Provider | Alibaba | |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 262.1K tokens~393 A4 pages of text | 262.1K tokens~393 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 33K | 8K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 160 tok/s | 92 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 61% | N/A |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 71.5% | 58% |
分野別勝者スコアカード
At-a-glance decision frameworkEvaluations ongoing
検証済みベンチマークスコア比較
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
レイテンシ＆応答時間
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
リアルタイムAPIトークン料金シミュレーター
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Gemma 4 26B A4B · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Google の高度な Sparse Mixture-of-Experts open transformer (26B total, 4B active) アーキテクチャと 262K トークンのコンテキスト処理能力
- 優れたコストパフォーマンス（入力 $0/1M、出力 $0/1M）と安定した応答速度
- プログラミング、論理的推論、多言語タスクにおいて高いベンチマーク精度を実現
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 大規模な長文コンテキスト処理時はトークン消費量の最適化が必要
- 専門領域のタスクでは適切なプロンプト設計や RAG の併用が推奨される
Qwen3.6 27B · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Alibaba の高度な Refined Dense Multimodal Transformer アーキテクチャと 262K トークンのコンテキスト処理能力
- 優れたコストパフォーマンス（入力 $0/1M、出力 $0/1M）と安定した応答速度
- プログラミング、論理的推論、多言語タスクにおいて高いベンチマーク精度を実現
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 大規模な長文コンテキスト処理時はトークン消費量の最適化が必要
- 専門領域のタスクでは適切なプロンプト設計や RAG の併用が推奨される
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 8K | 14K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 3K | 3K |
技術仕様・スペック
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | models/gemma-4-26b-a4b | qwen3-6-27b-instruct |
| API Protocol | Google Gemini API (generateContent) + OpenAI-Compatible SDK | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-04 | 2026-04 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | January 2026 | February 2026 |
| Architecture | Sparse Mixture-of-Experts open transformer (26B total, 4B active) | Refined Dense Multimodal Transformer |
| Parameters | 26B (4B active MoE) | 27B |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Built-in Google Search Grounding + Managed Python Code Execution Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 16 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 56 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 17 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 58 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Google DeepMind Frontier Safety Framework Verified | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text, vision |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B: よくある質問 (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is more intelligent. It scores 77 compared with 74 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is faster, generating 160 tokens per second compared with 92 tokens per second.
Which model has lower latency?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.29s compared with 0.39s.
総合評価
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if your priority is High-throughput local serving, private chatbots, and fast document analysis. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Qwen3.6 27B if your workflow prioritizes Production document parsing pipelines and reliable on-premises visual assistants. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
よくある質問 (FAQ)
How does Gemma 4 26B A4B compare to Qwen3.6 27B in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B are open-weights foundation models available at $0.00 direct API cost when self-hosted, or offered at identical baseline rates across major inference providers. Model selection depends on GPU deployment sizing and specialized benchmark performance rather than raw token price.
Which model has a larger context window: Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6 27B?+
Both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B offer an identical context window of 262K tokens (~197k words). Both architectures provide equal capacity for large document ingestion, multi-file codebases, and extended multi-turn conversation histories.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6 27B?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 61% on SWE-bench Verified, while Qwen3.6 27B scores competitively for software generation. For complex autonomous debugging and agentic engineering, Gemma 4 26B A4B provides robust code generation and tool calling.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, Qwen3.6 27B provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B generates approximately 160 tokens per second, while Qwen3.6 27B delivers 92 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Gemma 4 26B A4B provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Gemma 4 26B A4B and Qwen3.6 27B to optimize costs?+
Yes! Tiered multi-model routing can optimize for latency and accuracy: you can route high-frequency conversational turns and latency-sensitive queries to Gemma 4 26B A4B, and route deep architectural or complex reasoning queries to Gemma 4 26B A4B. This balanced routing strategy maximizes system throughput and answer quality.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Gemma 4 31B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B vs Qwen3.6 27B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Aion-Mini vs Laguna XS 2.1: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
公的ソース: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs