Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) or near-31b-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost. Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) and MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B is an Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Gemma 4 26B A4B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Gemma 4 26B A4B holds 1× more — 256K (~393 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: MAI-Thinking-1 is the newer model by about 2 months (released June 2, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Gemma 4 26B A4B
MAI-Thinking-1
Provider
Google (US)
Microsoft (US)
Released
April 2, 2026
June 2, 2026
Context window
256K (~393 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens
Not published
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total): Gemma 4 26B A4B — A core design strength of Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost: Gemma 4 26B A4B — A core design strength of Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6): Gemma 4 26B A4B — A core design strength of Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation: MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class: MAI-Thinking-1 — A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Lowest cost at scale: MAI-Thinking-1 — At Not published, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Gemma 4 26B A4B — Its 256K window is about 1× larger, fitting roughly 393 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: MAI-Thinking-1 — At Not published it undercuts Gemma 4 26B A4B, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Gemma 4 26B A4B — Larger 256K window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Gemma 4 26B A4B — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total): Gemma 4 26B A4B — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%): MAI-Thinking-1 — That is its strongest area.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: where it fits
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Released April 2, 2026 by Google, it is built for fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total), near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost, strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6), and multimodal input (text/image, plus video processed as frames up to 60s) with native function calling.
Its trade-offs are real: all 25.2B parameters must be loaded into memory even though only 3.8B are active per token, and 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only). At $0.15 in / $0.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Gemma 4 26B A4B leans toward fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) while MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 4 26B A4B — 256K vs 256K, about 1× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Gemma 4 26B A4B and MAI-Thinking-1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Gemma 4 26B A4B, MAI-Thinking-1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 — released June 2, 2026, about 2 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs MAI-Thinking-1
Google · US | Microsoft · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) or near-31b-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost. Pick MAI-Thinking-1 for very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%) or microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without openai distillation. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; MAI-Thinking-1 if you want a managed API.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) and MAI-Thinking-1 (Microsoft) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B is an Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. MAI-Thinking-1 is microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Gemma 4 26B A4B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Gemma 4 26B A4B holds 1× more — 256K (~393 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: MAI-Thinking-1 is the newer model by about 2 months (released June 2, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Gemma 4 26B A4B
MAI-Thinking-1
Provider
Google (US)
Microsoft (US)
Released
April 2, 2026
June 2, 2026
Context window
256K (~393 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.15/$0.6 per 1M tokens
Not published
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, video, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total)
Gemma 4 26B A4B
A core design strength of Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost
Very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%)
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class
MAI-Thinking-1
A core design strength of MAI-Thinking-1.
Lowest cost at scale
MAI-Thinking-1
At Not published, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Its 256K window is about 1× larger, fitting roughly 393 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ MAI-Thinking-1
At Not published it undercuts Gemma 4 26B A4B, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
Larger 256K window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; MAI-Thinking-1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total)
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%)
→ MAI-Thinking-1
That is its strongest area.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: where it fits
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Released April 2, 2026 by Google, it is built for fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total), near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost, strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6), and multimodal input (text/image, plus video processed as frames up to 60s) with native function calling.
Its trade-offs are real: all 25.2B parameters must be loaded into memory even though only 3.8B are active per token, and 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only). At $0.15 in / $0.6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
MAI-Thinking-1: where it fits
Microsoft's first fully in-house flagship reasoning model — a Claude-class reasoner built independently to cut its OpenAI dependence. Released June 2, 2026 by Microsoft, it is built for very strong math reasoning (AIME 2025 97%, AIME 2026 94.5%), microsoft's first in-house flagship reasoner, trained without OpenAI distillation, efficient reasoning at low token cost for its class, and competitive with Claude Opus 4.6 on SWE-Bench Pro (vendor-reported).
Its trade-offs: closed and in private preview — no open weights, no published pricing, thin availability, and benchmarks are largely self-reported.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Gemma 4 26B A4B and MAI-Thinking-1 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Gemma 4 26B A4B leans toward fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) while MAI-Thinking-1 leans toward very strong math reasoning (aime 2025 97%, aime 2026 94.5%), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while MAI-Thinking-1 is API-metered at Not published. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 4 26B A4B — 256K vs 256K, about 1× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Gemma 4 26B A4B and MAI-Thinking-1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Gemma 4 26B A4B, MAI-Thinking-1 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Gemma 4 26B A4B or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 — released June 2, 2026, about 2 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.