Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) | Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.4 | $0.13 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.4 | $0.4 |
Verdict. Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (9.0). Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (13.1).
Speed. On throughput, Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) generates tokens at 95 tok/s versus 49 tok/s — about 48% faster. On time-to-first-token, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) responds in 1390ms vs 4250ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. NVIDIA and Google sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: NVIDIA tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Google often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) costs $18.00 ($216/year); Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) costs $9.90 ($119/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) ≈ $2.80/run, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $1.45/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) ≈ $120/run, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $66/run. Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.20/M tokens vs $0.40/M for Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning).
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) generates tokens faster at 95 tok/s vs 49 tok/s. However, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (1.39s vs 4.25s).
Choose based on your priorities: Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) for lower cost, Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Llama Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (Reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.