| Signal | Gemma 3n 4B | Delta | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 17 | -67 | |
Pricing | 0 | 0 | |
Context window size | 72 | -23 | |
Recency | 77 | -23 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -60 | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -67 | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 6 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
Alibaba
Gemma 3n 4B saves you $15.50/month
That's $186.00/year compared to Qwen3.5-Flash at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 3n 4B | Qwen3.5-Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 46 | 79 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Rank | #271 | #80 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Quality Rank | #271 | #80 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Adoption Rank | #271 | #80 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Parameters | 4B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 33K | 1000K | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Pricing | $0.02/$0.04/M | $0.07/$0.26/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 17 | 83 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Pricing | 0 | 0 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Context window size | 72 | 95 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Recency | 77 | 100 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 80 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Benchmarks | -- | 67 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 46/100 (rank #271), placing it in the top 7% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #80), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a 33-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Gemma 3n 4B offers 82% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $0.90/month with Gemma 3n 4B vs $4.88/month with Qwen3.5-Flash - a $3.98 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Gemma 3n 4B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.04/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (79/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Qwen3.5-Flash clearly outperforms Gemma 3n 4B with a significant 33.10000000000001-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger choice. However, Gemma 3n 4B may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Gemma 3n 4B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Gemma 3n 4B
82% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 3n 4B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 3n 4B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 3n 4B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Gemma 3n 4B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Gemma 3n 4B saves you $0.3450/month
That's 80% cheaper than Qwen3.5-Flash at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Gemma 3n 4B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 33K | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | May 20, 2025 | Feb 25, 2026 |
Qwen3.5-Flash scores 79/100 (rank #80) compared to Gemma 3n 4B's 46/100 (rank #271), giving it a 33-point advantage. Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger overall choice, though Gemma 3n 4B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Gemma 3n 4B is ranked #271 and Qwen3.5-Flash is ranked #80 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Gemma 3n 4B is cheaper at $0.04/M output tokens vs Qwen3.5-Flash's $0.26/M output tokens - 6.5x more expensive. Input token pricing: Gemma 3n 4B at $0.02/M vs Qwen3.5-Flash at $0.07/M.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to Gemma 3n 4B's 32,768 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.