Compare / Qwen3.5-Flash vs Gemma 4 31B

Qwen3.5-Flash vs Gemma 4 31B

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 10 results on 3 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3.5-Flash $0.065 in · $0.26 out
GoogleGemma 4 31B Released 2 Apr 2026 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
Qwen3.5-Flash wins 1Gemma 4 31B wins 9

Of the 10 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.

Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B? The short answer

They score about the same, so pick Qwen3.5-Flash: it costs 45% less per token.

  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper: $0.11 against $0.21 per million tokens, 45% less.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemma 4 31B does better for writing and sticking to the facts.

Head to head

$0.11
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.21
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
262,144

Every fact side by side

Qwen3.5-FlashGemma 4 31B
Price per million tokens$0.065 in · $0.26 out$0.14 in · $0.40 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.11$0.21
Cheapest host, blended–$0.15 (DeepInfra, FP4)
Intelligence Index–14.7
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second–43
Context window1,000,000 tokens262,144 tokens
Released–2 Apr 2026
WeightsClosedOpen
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 143 of 164 101 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge not measured 93 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 115 of 188 74 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 119 of 152 90 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3.5-FlashGemma 4 31B
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 65 of 387 measured 1,396 1,453
Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 123 · 60 of 163 measured 1,414 1,450
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 137 · 66 of 380 measured 1,403 1,449
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result
Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 64 · 74 of 76 measured 20.3% 10.4%
Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results
Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 62 · 35 of 104 measured 10.5% 7.4%
Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 1 of 104 measured 99.8% 100.0%
Show all 10 results (4 more)
MeasureQwen3.5-FlashGemma 4 31B
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 167 · 74 of 385 measured 1,337 1,420
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 42 of 338 measured 1,419 1,498
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 148 · 49 of 387 measured 1,381 1,453
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 149 · 63 of 386 measured 1,367 1,435

Quick answers

Is Qwen3.5-Flash better than Gemma 4 31B?

They score about the same, so pick Qwen3.5-Flash: it costs 45% less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper: $0.11 against $0.21 per million tokens, 45% less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemma 4 31B ranks 101 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 143 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemma 4 31B ranks 74 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 115 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemma 4 31B ranks 90 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 119 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-Flash or Gemma 4 31B?

Qwen3.5-Flash: 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 31B.

Run Qwen3.5-Flash and Gemma 4 31B on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.