Which model is better: Gemma 4 31B IT or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemma 4 31B IT is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (165ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 155 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 91.7% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Gemma 4 31B IT
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.12
$0.16
Gemma 4 31B IT is 1.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.36
$0.47
Gemma 4 31B IT (23.4% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.030
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 1.9x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.12
$0.20
Gemma 4 31B IT is 1.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
131k (16k out)
268k (66k out)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (2.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
115ms
280ms
Gemma 4 31B IT (165ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
155 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+30 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
59.2%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+21.8% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
71.2%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+20.5% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
82.8%
88.4%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+5.6% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
91.5%
95.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+4.2% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
80.3 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+4.8 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Gemma 4 31B IT or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.36/1M output) compared to $0.16/1M input ($0.47/1M output) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Gemma 4 31B IT or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemma 4 31B IT delivers faster first-token latency at 115ms TTFT (155 tok/s throughput) compared to 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
How do Gemma 4 31B IT and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Gemma 4 31B IT scores 59.2% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Gemma 4 31B IT scores 71.2% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 91.5% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Gemma 4 31B IT?
Choose Gemma 4 31B IT (Google) for self-hosted VPC inference, fine-tuned domain agents, sovereign healthcare/finance workloads, and low-latency local code generation — offering a 131k context window, 115ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
