AI Model Comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2

Verdict
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2: Gemma 4 26B A4B scores higher on the Intelligence Index

Head-to-head specifications

MetricGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2Difference
Intelligence Index25.024.0+4.2%
Context window400K tokens200K tokens
Blended price ($/1M tokens)$0.13$0.51-74.5%
Output speed (tokens/s)5435+54.3%
AccessOpen weightsOpen weights
  • Gemma 4 26B A4B leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 25.0 vs 24.0).
  • Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 3.9× cheaper.
  • Gemma 4 26B A4B offers the larger context window (400K tokens), useful for long documents and codebases.

Verdict: Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2?

Our recommendation
Gemma 4 26B A4B is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter.

Gemma 4 26B A4B advantages

  • General intelligence (+4%)
  • Context window (+50%)
  • Affordability (+75%)
  • Output speed (+35%)

Kimi K2 advantages

  • No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.

Which should you choose?

  • Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need the strongest overall reasoning and accuracy.
  • Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you work with long documents or large codebases.

Value for money

Gemma 4 26B A4B offers more intelligence per dollar (4.1× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use. It is also open-weight, so self-hosting can reduce costs further at scale.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2: which should you choose?

Gemma 4 26B A4B — Google text model with an Intelligence Index of 25, a 400K-token context window and a blended price of $0.13/1M tokens (open weights).

Kimi K2 — Moonshot AI text model with an Intelligence Index of 24, a 200K-token context window and a blended price of $0.51/1M tokens (open weights).

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2: Gemma 4 26B A4B scores higher on the Intelligence Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 25.0 vs 24.0). Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 3.9× cheaper.

Capability: intelligence, coding and agentic work

On the composite Intelligence Index the Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 25.0 versus 24.0. Composite indices summarize many evaluations, but always test on your own workload before committing.

Context window and speed

The Gemma 4 26B A4B accepts up to 400K tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once. In measured throughput, Gemma 4 26B A4B generates faster (54 vs 35 tokens/s), which matters for interactive apps and high-volume pipelines.

Pricing and access

At blended per-token rates, Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run ($0.13 vs $0.51 per 1M tokens). Gemma 4 26B A4B is open weights and Kimi K2 is open weights. Open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage; for production also weigh rate limits, throughput and data-residency requirements.

The verdict

Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Gemma 4 26B A4B better than the Kimi K2?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Gemma 4 26B A4B leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 25.0 vs 24.0).

What is the main difference between the Gemma 4 26B A4B and the Kimi K2?

Gemma 4 26B A4B leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 25.0 vs 24.0). Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 3.9× cheaper.

Which is better value?

Gemma 4 26B A4B offers more intelligence per dollar (4.1× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use. It is also open-weight, so self-hosting can reduce costs further at scale.

Which should I choose?

Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need the strongest overall reasoning and accuracy. Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you work with long documents or large codebases.

Methodology

Large language models are compared on independent leaderboard metrics: an Intelligence Index (a composite of reasoning and knowledge evaluations), Coding and Agentic indices where measured, community arena Elo, maximum context window, a blended API price per million tokens (weighted across cache-hit, input and output rates), and measured output speed in tokens per second. Where a model ships multiple reasoning-effort variants, we report its strongest variant. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit — and this space moves quickly, so figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.

ER
EquivalentTo Research
Data & Benchmarks Team

We compile published benchmark results (Cinebench 2024, Geekbench 6, AnTuTu v10, 3DMark), manufacturer specifications and market pricing from nine regions into normalized, comparable datasets. Every figure traces to a named public source listed on each page.

Benchmark leaderboard compilationMulti-market pricing normalizationUnit & currency conversion
✓ Reviewed by EquivalentTo Editorial Review, Data Quality & Methodology.
Last updated 2026-07-01
Gemma 4 26B A4B profile → Kimi K2 profile → Compare something else

Related comparisons