Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) by Google or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 31.0 points higher (39.9 vs 8.9) but costs 179× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $14.7; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 8.9, and Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) when 8.9 is enough.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.9 | 39.9 | +348.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 4.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.68 | $2,632.05 | +17829.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 179× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 57.75s | 61.58s | +6.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 6.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.02 / $0.10 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning): 348.3% more intelligence, 17829.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 6.6% slower 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill