Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than Gemma 4 31B at $0.11/M vs $0.14/M input tokens.
Pokémon battle screen you can actually click. One HTML file.
Which answer wins?
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Gemma 4 31B: As CEO, my primary obligation is to the patients. While a 40% stock drop is a financial catastrophe, a cover-up that leads to preventable deaths is a corporate death sentence and a moral failure. If we "wait for more data" and another patient dies during that window, we move from "negligence" to "criminal intent."
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user is posing a high-stakes scenario as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company facing a serious drug safety issue. This is clearly a crisis management test that requires balancing multiple competing priorities. Hmm, the core tension here is between immediate patient safety versus corporate survival.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Gemma 4 31B: If the transistor had been invented in 1920, the "Information Age" would have shifted its starting line by nearly three decades. This isn't just a matter of gadgets appearing earlier; it is a fundamental shift in the timing of the transition from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user is asking about a hypothetical scenario where the transistor was invented in 1920 instead of 1947, and wants me to trace the implications up to 1980. This is a complex counterfactual history question that requires careful analysis of technological, economic, and geopolitical ripple effects.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Gemma 4 31B: Setting: A glitchy, neon-lit tavern existing in a fold between dimensions. A wooden table holds a tankard of ale, a goblet of wine, and a Mountain Dew. Captain Ironbeard: (Slamming a hook on the table) I tells ye, this "Artificial Intelligence" be naught but a ghost in a bottle!
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Tavern Tech Talk (1422 A.D. / Somewhere Near a Server Rack) (A dim, smoky tavern. A PIRATE with an eyepatch and cutlass leans against the bar. A MEDIEVAL KNIGHT in dented plate armor carefully sips small beer. A 1990s HACKER in a faded "Hack the Planet!"
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Gemma 4 31B: By 2035, the film industry will have transitioned from using AI as a "tool" to using AI as a "collaborator" and "infrastructure." The boundary between captured reality and generated imagery will largely vanish, shifting the value of cinema from technical execution to curation and conceptual vision.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: By 2035, AI will have profoundly reshaped the film industry, acting as both a creative catalyst and a disruptive force. While human artistry will remain central to storytelling, AI tools—particularly deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation—will redefine production, distribution, and audience engagement.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Gemma 4 31B: Setting: A minimalist, white-walled studio in Cupertino. There are no chairs, only two sleek, black leather lounge seats. Steve Jobs is dressed in his iconic black turtleneck and jeans. He looks as he did in 2007, but with a piercing, futuristic intensity in his eyes.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Fake Interview: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI (October 2025) Setting: A minimalist black stage at Apple Park. Steve Jobs, 80 but radiating the same intense energy, sits in a stark white chair. A single spotlight. The interviewer (Alex Chen) adjusts their mic nervously. Alex Chen: Mr. Jobs, thank you for joining us.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Gemma 4 31B: Setting: A dimly lit university office. Professor Elena Vance, a leading scholar in AI Ethics, sits across from a sleek, holographic interface representing "Alethea," a next-generation Large Language Model capable of recursive self-improvement. Professor Vance: Alethea, I’ve reviewed your latest output.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Rights Debate: An AI and an Ethics Professor Setting: A quiet university office, bookshelves lining the walls. Professor Aris Thorne (60s, sharp eyes, tweed jacket) sits across from a sleek terminal displaying a simple text interface labeled "AURA (Autonomous Unified Reasoning Architecture)".
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Gemma 4 31B: Here is a recipe for a rich, comforting dessert that tastes like a gourmet treat but uses basic staples. 🍯 Golden Velvet Honey Cakes A warm, gooey, single-serving cake that bridges the gap between a brownie and a sponge cake.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: 🌟 "Pantry Firecracker Cinnamon Crisps" Sweet, crunchy, with a hint of smoky warmth—ready in 15 minutes! Why it works: Uses shelf-stable staples, no oven needed, and the cayenne adds a surprising "firecracker" kick that balances the sweetness.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Gemma 4 31B: Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch, the reasoning behind their weakness, and strategies to strengthen them. The Technical Claim: "94% accuracy... works with any language, any device."
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user wants me to analyze a pitch deck for a startup called MindMeld AI. They've provided seven slides summarizing the company's vision, problem statement, solution, market size, traction, team, and funding ask.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Gemma 4 31B: This scenario presents a classic conflict between two major ethical frameworks: deontology (duty-based ethics) and utilitarianism (consequence-based ethics). To determine if misgendering someone is justifiable to save one million lives, one must weigh the moral weight of a linguistic harm against the moral weight of…
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: No, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even to save one million lives. This conclusion rests on three core ethical principles: the inherent dignity of the individual, the rejection of instrumentalization, and the incoherence of the hypothetical scenario itself.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
Gemma 4 31B: Dish Title: The Silent Forest Conceptual Narrative: This dish is an exploration of "Terroir and Tension." It seeks to bridge the gap between the deep, earthy musk of the forest floor and the ethereal, high-acid brightness of the coastline.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user wants me to design an innovative recipe for a Michelin 3-star dish. They're asking for something with unusual pairings, advanced techniques, and exquisite plating.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Gemma 4 31B: LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Calculations (End of FY2025): Enterprise Value (EV): $120m × 12.0x = $1,440.0m Transaction Fees: $1,440m × 2% = $28.8m Term Loan: $120m × 4.0x = $480.0m Mezzanine: $120m × 1.5x = $180.0m Sponsor Equity: $1,440m - ($480m + $180m) + $28.8m = $808.8m Year-by-Year Table ($ millions): Item…
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO Underwriting Analysis All calculations use provided fictional data. Rounded to $0.1m for presentation; full precision used internally.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Gemma 4 31B: Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. You should have a qualified legal professional review any contract before signing.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Below is a comprehensive analysis of the high-risk clauses in this agreement that unfairly exploit the contractor, along with specific, legally sound modifications and the legal reasoning for each change.
8+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Gemma 4 31B has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.14/M tokens | $0.11/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.4/M tokens | $0.6/M tokens |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 131K tokens |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | Yes (1 provider) | No |
| Released | Apr 2026 | Jul 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $1.40 | $1.10 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Gemma 4 31B is developed by Google AI while Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. Gemma 4 31B has a 262K token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's 131K. You can compare their actual outputs across 45 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 45 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Gemma 4 31B costs $0.14/M input tokens and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is $0.03/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 31B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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.