Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 5.2

At a Glance

Compare
Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle DeepMind
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort#23 of 4661.9 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.3–74.6
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort#7 of 3861.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 51.0–67.6
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.070Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.30Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026$2.40Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,049K
Model facts checkedSep 3, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B-A4BGLM-5.2
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,434.4798% of row best · rating · gemma-4-26b-a4b; 95% CI [1426.87673667, 1442.06986887]; votes 5804; rank 801,466.93100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.35303996, 1471.51268346]; votes 36798; rank 29
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldGemma 4 26B-A4BGLM-5.2
DeveloperGoogle DeepMindZ.ai
FamilyGemma 4Glm 5 2
ModelGemma 4 26B-A4BGLM-5.2
VersionGemma 4 26B-A4BGLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-03-11Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,049K
Total parameters26B753.3B
Active parameters4BUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0mit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Gemma 4 26B A4B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers4
Canonical IDgoogle/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.070 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric. Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.30 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Gemma 4 26B A4B supports 262K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Gemma 4 26B A4B is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

Gemma 4 26B A4B is documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemma 4 26B A4B is — and GLM 5.2 is —.

Do Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

Gemma 4 26B A4B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

Gemma 4 26B A4B has 4 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback