Model Comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs U2Which is better in 2026?

Comparing Gemma 4 31B and U2 across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Gemma 4 31B vs U2 — which is better?

Gemma 4 31B (by Google) and U2 (by Unisound) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Choose Gemma 4 31B if…

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose U2 if…

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jun 2026

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemma 4 31B and U2don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

U2 costs less

For input processing, Gemma 4 31B ($0.13/1M tokens) is 1.2x cheaper than U2 ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemma 4 31B ($0.38/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than U2 ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemma 4 31B is more expensive than U2.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Jul 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 4 31B
Input tokens$0.13
Output tokens$0.38
Best providerDeepinfra
Unisound
U2
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerUnisound
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

235.3B diff

U2 has 235.3B more parameters than Gemma 4 31B, making it 766.4% larger.

Google
Gemma 4 31B
30.7Bparameters
Unisound
U2
266.0Bparameters
30.7B
Gemma 4 31B
266.0B
U2

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Gemma 4 31B specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Gemma 4 31B specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Google
Gemma 4 31B
Input262,144 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Unisound
U2
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Jul 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 4 31B supports multimodal inputs, whereas U2 does not.

Gemma 4 31B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 4 31B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

U2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 4 31B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while U2 uses a proprietary license.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 4 31B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

U2

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 4 31B was released on 2026-04-02, while U2 was released on 2026-06-05.

U2 is 2 months newer than Gemma 4 31B.

Gemma 4 31B

Apr 2, 2026

3 months ago

U2

Jun 5, 2026

1 months ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 4 31B has a knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-01, while U2 has a cutoff of 2026-01-31.

U2 has more recent training data (up to 2026-01-31), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Gemma 4 31B (2025-01-01).

Gemma 4 31B

Jan 2025

U2

Jan 2026

1 yr newer

Provider Availability

Gemma 4 31B is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI, Novita, Together. U2 is available from Unisound.

Gemma 4 31B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.13/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.38/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.39/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.97/1M

U2

unisound logo
Unisound
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Larger context window (262,144 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Has open weights
Unisound
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemma 4 31B and U2 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 4 31B
✓ Preferred
U2
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 4 31B
Unisound
U2

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 4 31B vs U2.

Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or U2?

Gemma 4 31B (Google) and U2 (Unisound) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemma 4 31B compare to U2 in benchmarks?

Gemma 4 31B scores AIME 2026: 89.2%, MMMLU: 88.4%, t2-bench: 86.4%, MathVision: 85.6%, MMLU-Pro: 85.2%.

Is Gemma 4 31B cheaper than U2?

Gemma 4 31B is 1.2x cheaper for input tokens. Gemma 4 31B costs $0.13/M input and $0.38/M output via deepinfra. U2 costs $0.15/M input and $0.30/M output via unisound.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 4 31B and U2?

Gemma 4 31B supports 262K tokens and U2 supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemma 4 31B and U2?

Key differences include input pricing ($0.13 vs $0.15/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 4 31B and U2?

Gemma 4 31B is developed by Google and U2 is developed by Unisound.

Related comparisons