Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) vs GPT-5.6 Luna (High)
Which is better for the money: Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) by Google or GPT-5.6 Luna (High) by OpenAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.6 Luna (High) scores 23.2 points higher (32.1 vs 8.9) but costs 7.4× as much to run the benchmark ($108 vs $14.7; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.6 Luna (High) when you need intelligence above 8.9, and Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) when 8.9 is enough.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) | GPT-5.6 Luna (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.9 | 32.1 | +260.7% GPT-5.6 Luna (High) is 3.6× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.68 | $108.15 | +636.7% GPT-5.6 Luna (High) is 7.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 55.98s | 12.33s | −78.0% GPT-5.6 Luna (High) is 78.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.02 / $0.10 | $0.20 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text, Image |
GPT-5.6 Luna (High) vs Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning): 260.7% more intelligence, 636.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 78.0% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- GPT-5.6 Luna (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) scores 37.80 for $94.1.
Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning)GPT-5.6 Luna (High)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/gpt-5-6-luna-high · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/gpt-5-6-luna-high?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill