Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Wins 8 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger all-rounder.Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 52 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software07Qwen3.6 Plus7 of 8 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Qwen3.6 Plus2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 85% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 Plus pulls ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+61.4points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in many programming languagesSWE-bench Multilingual+56.5points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+51.8points ahead
Where Gemma 4 26B A4B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 52 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 Plus
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 Plus by 61.417.478.8+61.4
- SWE-bench MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus by 56.517.373.8+56.5
- SWE-bench ProQwen3.6 Plus by 42.813.856.6+42.8
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 Plus by 30.313.643.9+30.3
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Qwen3.6 Plus by 22.43961.4+22.4
- LMArena · WebDevQwen3.6 Plus by 102 rating points13591461+102 rating
- LiveCodeBench v6Qwen3.6 Plus by 1077.187.1+10
- SciCodetie4040.7tie
AgentsQwen3.6 Plus
- MCP AtlasQwen3.6 Plus by 24.15074.1+24.1
- GDPValQwen3.6 Plus by 21.33.424.7+21.3
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.6 Plus by 8.81220.8+8.8
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 Plus by 979.288.2+9
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 Plus by 8.519.327.8+8.5
- CritPtQwen3.6 Plus by 2.902.9+2.9
FactsQwen3.6 Plus
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 Plus by 51.813.665.4+51.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.6 Plus by 7.319.126.4+7.3
Images and chartsQwen3.6 Plus
- CharXiv (RQ)Qwen3.6 Plus by 12.56981.5+12.5
- MMMU-ProQwen3.6 Plus by 8.869.278+8.8
- MMMUQwen3.6 Plus by 7.678.486+7.6
MathQwen3.6 Plus
- IMOAnswerBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 9.574.383.8+9.5
- HMMT Feb. 2026Qwen3.6 Plus by 8.87987.8+8.8
- AIME 2026Qwen3.6 Plus by 788.395.3+7
Following instructionsQwen3.6 Plus
- IFBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 2.872.475.2+2.8
Other results28 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 Plus by 54.143.697.7+54.1
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.6 Plus by 51.7-50.80.9+51.7
- WideSearchQwen3.6 Plus by 3638.374.3+36
- MCPMarkQwen3.6 Plus by 3414.248.2+34
- HLE (with tools)Qwen3.6 Plus by 33.417.250.6+33.4
- Claw Eval (pass@3)Qwen3.6 Plus by 30.72858.7+30.7
- Tool-DecathlonQwen3.6 Plus by 27.81239.8+27.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Qwen3.6 Plus by 27.434.261.6+27.4
- NL2RepoQwen3.6 Plus by 26.311.637.9+26.3
- DeepPlanningQwen3.6 Plus by 25.316.241.5+25.3
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.6 Plus by 181129+18
- OmniDocBench 1.5Qwen3.6 Plus by 16.874.491.2+16.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 Plus by 15.239.354.5+15.2
- SimpleVQAQwen3.6 Plus by 15.152.267.3+15.1
- RealWorldQAQwen3.6 Plus by 13.272.285.4+13.2
- τ³-BenchQwen3.6 Plus by 11.75970.7+11.7
- C-EvalQwen3.6 Plus by 10.882.593.3+10.8
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 Plus by 10.316.727+10.3
- SuperGPQAQwen3.6 Plus by 10.261.471.6+10.2
- CC-OCRQwen3.6 Plus by 8.974.583.4+8.9
- VITA-BenchQwen3.6 Plus by 7.436.944.3+7.4
- HMMT Nov. 2025Qwen3.6 Plus by 7.187.594.6+7.1
- AI2DQwen3.6 Plus by 6.188.394.4+6.1
- MMLU-ProQwen3.6 Plus by 5.982.688.5+5.9
- MATH-VisionQwen3.6 Plus by 5.682.488+5.6
- MMMLUQwen3.6 Plus by 3.286.389.5+3.2
- IFEvalQwen3.6 Plus by 2.991.494.3+2.9
- MMLU-ReduxQwen3.6 Plus by 1.892.794.5+1.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus wins all eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, math, long documents and following instructions. Gemma 4 26B A4B wins none, but costs 85% less.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus. It wins 7 of the 8 coding tests both models report; Gemma 4 26B A4B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.13 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Gemma 4 26B A4B about 85% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 52 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 24 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 28 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.