Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Gemma 4 26B A4BvsGLM 5.3 Flash
Updated Aug 2026

Gemma 4 26B A4BvsGLM 5.3 Flash

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.13/M vs $0.15/M input tokens.

Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.3 Flash compared across 15 shared prompts
SpecGemma 4 26B A4BGLM 5.3 Flash
Input price$0.13/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Output price$0.4/M tokens$0.5/M tokens
Context window262K tokens1.3M tokens
WeightsOpenOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedApr 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 15 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Gemma 4 26B A4B735 words
To trace this counterfactual, we must assume that the fundamental physics of solid-state semiconductors (the ability to control electron flow through crystals) was mastered during the vacuum tube era. This shifts the "Information Age" forward by nearly 30 years. Here is the timeline of implications from 1920 to 1980.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,314 words
Counterfactual: The Transistor in 1920 Preliminary Framing A 1920 transistor presumes vacuum-tube-era physics knowledge outpacing reality—quantum mechanics wasn't mature until 1926–28, so a working device would likely be an empirical oddity (like the actual point-contact transistor) imperfectly understood.
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Gemma 4 26B A4B757 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. The following plan involves potent physiological interventions, pharmacological agents, and extreme dietary shifts. Consult with a medical professional and perform baseline blood work (including ApoB, HbA1c, hs-CRP, Vitamin D, and Testosterone/Estradiol) before implementation.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,294 words
90-Day Longevity Optimization Protocol ⚠️ Medical disclaimer: This is an educational framework, not medical advice. Before starting, complete baseline labs and consult a physician—especially before fasting, supplements (rapamycin off-label use, high-dose anything), or if you have any health conditions.
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Gemma 4 26B A4B435 words
Financial Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Calculations (End of FY2025): Purchase Price (EV): $120\text{m} \times 12.0\text{x} = \$1,440\text{m}$ Transaction Fees: $1,440\text{m} \times 2\% = \$28.8\text{m}$ Total Uses: $\$1,440\text{m} + \$28.8\text{m} = \$1,468.8\text{m}$ Debt (Total 5.5x): $\$120\text{m} \times 5.5 =…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash518 words
HarborTech Services — 5-Year LBO Summary Entry Math EV = 12.0x × $120m = $1,440.0m; Fees (2%) = $28.8m; Total uses = $1,468.8m Debt: TL = 4.0x × 120 = $480.0m; Mezz = 1.5x × 120 = $180.0m; Total = $660.0m (5.5x) Sponsor equity = $808.8m Base Case Projection ($m) FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 Revenue 972.0 1,039.7 1,102.1…
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Gemma 4 26B A4B869 words
As CEO, I am facing a classic "trolley problem" of corporate governance: the conflict between fiduciary duty to shareholders and ethical/legal duty to patient safety. My Decision Framework: I will not "wait for more data."
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,321 words
48-Hour Action Plan: Liver Failure Signal in Flagship Drug Guiding Principle First The side effect is real, the drug is in 4 million patients, and roughly 500 patients per year may develop liver failure (4M ÷ 8,000). Every day of delay is measured in preventable liver transplants and deaths.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Gemma 4 26B A4B624 words
To the Experienced Software Engineer Focus: Complexity, Emergent Properties, and the "Training Pipeline" Think of an LLM not as a magical oracle, but as a massive, non-deterministic state machine trained via a high-throughput distributed training pipeline.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,276 words
The Experienced Software Engineer You know how a load balancer routes requests, how a cache stores frequently-accessed data, how a database index lets you find a needle without scanning the haystack? An LLM is a fundamentally different kind of system: it's a learned lookup, not a designed one.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Gemma 4 26B A4B558 words
This is a high-ambition pitch that falls into a common trap for deep-tech startups: the "Science Fiction Gap." While the vision is compelling, several claims lack the scientific and operational credibility required to justify a $15M Series A.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash667 words
Three Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch Slide 3: "94% accuracy" decoding brainwaves into text Why it's weak: The claim is meaningless without a baseline. 94% accuracy for what — character recognition? Word prediction? Compared against what task?
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 26B A4BRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GLM 5.3 Flash has the edge: newer, bigger context window.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Gemma 4 26B A4B
Input
$0.13
1.2× cheaper
Output
$0.40
1.3× cheaper
GLM 5.3 Flash
Input
$0.15
Output
$0.50

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on both: 1.2× input, 1.3× output.

Where to run it

41 hosts, cheapest first

Gemma 4 26B A4B12 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDarkbloom$0.04 in·$0.22 out·131k·99.9% upDDekaLLMbf16$0.06 in·$0.33 out·262k·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp8$0.07 in·$0.34 out·262k·99.4% upNNextBitbf16$0.09 in·$0.30 out·262k·97.3% upCCoreWeavebf16$0.10 in·$0.30 out·262k·98.5% upMMakora$0.10 in·$0.34 out·262k·99% up
6 more hostsFewer hosts
NNovitabf16$0.13 in·$0.40 out·262k·99.3% upPParasailbf16$0.13 in·$0.40 out·262k·98.8% upVVenicebf16$0.13 in·$0.40 out·256k·97.6% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.14 in·$0.40 out·262k·97.7% upGoogle Vertex AI$0.15 in·$0.60 out·262k·96% upCloudflare Workers AIdegraded$0.10 in·$0.30 out·256k·99% up
GLM 5.3 Flash29 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDeepInfrafp4$0.07 in·$0.25 out·1M·99% upIInferenceNetfp4$0.09 in·$0.28 out·1M·97.8% upGGMI Cloudfp8$0.09 in·$0.30 out·1M·99.2% upWWafer$0.10 in·$0.35 out·1M·99.8% upRRelace$0.10 in·$0.36 out·1M·99.9% upOOpenInferencefp4$0.10 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.2% up
23 more hostsFewer hosts
PPhalafp8$0.13 in·$0.42 out·1M·99.6% upNNovitafp8$0.13 in·$0.44 out·1M·99.5% upSStreamLakefp8$0.14 in·$0.47 out·1M·99.1% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.4% upBBasetenfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.8% upCCoreWeavenvfp4$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.6% upDDigitalOcean$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·95.2% upFFireworks$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99% upFFriendli$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.6% upIInceptronfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.5% upIio.netfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·262k·99.1% upNNear AIfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.1% upPParasailfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.7% upRRekafp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·262k·99% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.7% upTTogether$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.6% upVVenice$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.1% upZ.aifp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·96.2% upNNextBitfp8$0.18 in·$0.60 out·1M·97.9% upModalfp8$0.45 in·$1.50 out·1M·99.6% upMMorphdegraded$0.08 in·$0.28 out·1M·95.9% upCCrusoefp4degraded$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·93% upCloudflare Workers AIdegraded$0.30 in·$1.00 out·1.3M·99.6% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Gemma 4 26B A4B is developed by Google AI while GLM 5.3 Flash is developed by Zhipu AI. Gemma 4 26B A4B has a 262K token context window vs GLM 5.3 Flash's 1.3M. You can compare their actual outputs across 15 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.3 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 15 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.13/M input tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash costs $0.15/M input tokens. Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.02/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM 5.3 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Gemma 4 26B A4B logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoHy3 logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoGLM 5.3 logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Gemma 4 26B A4B logoGemini 3.8 Flash logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemini 3.8 FlashSame lab
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoGemini 3.7 Flash logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Gemini 3.7 FlashSame lab
GLM 5.3 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5.3Same lab
GLM 5.3 Flash logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame lab
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoSeed 2.1 Turbo logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Seed 2.1 TurboSame size
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoSherlock Dash Alpha logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Sherlock Dash AlphaNew provider
Gemma 4 26B A4B logoSherlock Think Alpha logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Sherlock Think AlphaNew provider
GLM 5.3 Flash logoSolar Pro 3 logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Solar Pro 3Same size

Model pages

Gemma 4 26B A4B logo
Gemma 4 26B A4B58 outputs, specs and price
GLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 Flash15 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed