Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) by Google or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
LongCat 2.0 scores 10.2 points higher (19.1 vs 8.9) but costs 37× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $14.7; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 8.9, and Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) when 8.9 is enough.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.9 | 19.1 | +114.6% LongCat 2.0 is 2.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.68 | $544.74 | +3610.8% LongCat 2.0 is 37× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 57.75s | 35.54s | −38.5% LongCat 2.0 is 38.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.02 / $0.10 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning): 114.6% more intelligence, 3610.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 38.5% 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.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning)LongCat 2.0Today'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/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill