Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B at $0.13/M vs $2.7/M input tokens.
Sections that transition like Framer. Timing is the whole grade.
Which answer wins?
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.13/M tokens | $2.7/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.4/M tokens | $3.1/M tokens |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | Yes (1 provider) | No |
| Released | Apr 2026 | Jul 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $1.30 | $27.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 7 Oct 2026.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is developed by Google AI while Llama 3.1 405B is developed by Meta AI. Gemma 4 26B A4B has a 262K token context window vs Llama 3.1 405B's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 12 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Llama 3.1 405B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 12 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.13/M input tokens and Llama 3.1 405B costs $2.7/M input tokens. Gemma 4 26B A4B is $2.57/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 Llama 3.1 405B 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.