Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B

Google · US  |  Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) · China · 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B for 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context or artificial analysis intelligence index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class. On a tight budget at scale, Nanbeige4.3-33B is the value pick.

Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google, US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. 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. Nanbeige4.3-33B is nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecGemma 4 26B A4BNanbeige4.3-33B
ProviderGoogle (US) Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) (China)
ReleasedApril 2, 2026 October 25, 2026
Context window256K (~393 pages) 512K tokens (~786 pages)
Price (in/out)$0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?Yes — self-hostable Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext, image, video, code text, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total)

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B lists fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total) among its strengths; Nanbeige4.3-33B does not.

Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B lists near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost among its strengths; Nanbeige4.3-33B does not.

Strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6)

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Nanbeige4.3-33B is comparatively weak here — coding benchmarks are self-reported, with non-standard settings noted on the model card and no independent reproduction

33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Its 512K tokens window holds about 2× more than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K in a single prompt.

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware — and it carries the larger 512K tokens context.

Lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware — and it is the newer of the two.

Lowest cost at scale

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Gemma 4 26B A4B's $0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens.

Largest single-prompt input

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Its 512K tokens window is about 2× larger than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K, fitting roughly 786 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

→ Nanbeige4.3-33B

At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Gemma 4 26B A4B, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

→ Nanbeige4.3-33B

Larger 512K tokens window fits more in one prompt.

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 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context

→ Nanbeige4.3-33B

That is its strongest area.

An enterprise with regional data-residency rules

→ Gemma 4 26B A4B or Nanbeige4.3-33B

Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.

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 $0.12 in / $0.37 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.

Nanbeige4.3-33B: where it fits

Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. Released October 25, 2026 by Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), it is built for 33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class, and lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5.

Its trade-offs: coding benchmarks are self-reported, with non-standard settings noted on the model card and no independent reproduction, no public first-party API or per-token price; Artificial Analysis lists no publicly available API, and text-only input. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.

The bottom line for this matchup

This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Gemma 4 26B A4B (US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Nanbeige4.3-33B is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.

Want both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Nanbeige4.3-33B 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.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or Nanbeige4.3-33B 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B leans toward 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Nanbeige4.3-33B?

Nanbeige4.3-33B is cheaper — $0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).

Which has the bigger context window?

Nanbeige4.3-33B — 512K tokens vs 256K, about 2× 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Gemma 4 26B A4B, Nanbeige4.3-33B 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 Nanbeige4.3-33B?

Nanbeige4.3-33B — released October 25, 2026, about 7 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.