logoalt Hacker News

zkmonyesterday at 1:23 PM1 replyview on HN

I have tested Gemma4-26B against Qwen3.6-35B. Gemma beats Qwen on structured data extraction and instruction following. Gemma is far more precise than Qwen in these tasks, while Qwen gets a bit more creative, verbose, and imprecise. However Qwen has far more general smartness, high token throughput. Qwen could precisely pinpoint the issues in data quality and code, while Gemma had no clue. On the coding skills, Qwen appears to have edge over Gemma, but this could depend on the agent you use. For direct chat (llama_cpp UI), bot models show same skills for coding.


Replies

seemazeyesterday at 6:36 PM

That's interesting. I've been using Qwen3.5-35B for (poorly) structured table extraction based largely on the reports that Qwen had a much better vision implementation.

I have not benchmarked Qwen3.5 vs. Qwen3.6 for the same task, nor trialed Gemma4-26B. Guess it's time for some testing!