OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Google: Gemma 4 31B has the lower cheapest prompt+completion route on TrustedRouter. Google: Gemma 4 31B has more provider fallback routes, while Google: Gemma 4 31B has the larger context window. Current TrustedRouter probes show Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B with the lower p50 TTFT.

$0.4642/1MGoogle: Gemma 4 31B cheapest route

$3.63975/1MQwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B cheapest route

1163 msGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT via friendli

1112 msQwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B fastest measured p50 TTFT via digitalocean

Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Google: Gemma 4 31BQwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Model idgoogle/gemma-4-31b-itqwen/qwen3.5-397b-a17b

Publisher Google AI Studio DeepInfra

AI IQ IQ 103#80 —

Context262,144 tokens262,144 tokens

Credits provider routes1410

Cheapest route$0.4642/1M$3.63975/1M

Cached input$0.03798/1M to $0.211/1M$0.047475/1M to $0.58025/1M

Privacy posturehas provider E2EE routehas provider E2EE route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT1163 ms via friendli1112 ms via digitalocean

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime range0.00% to 100.00%33.33% to 100.00%

Modes chat chat

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

Overview14 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B routes

Overview10 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.242 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.341 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash40 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B38 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K338 combined provider routes
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.238 combined provider routes
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.337 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b36 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="google/gemma-4-31b-it",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Google: Gemma 4 31B or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.4642/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B and $3.63975/1M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 1163 ms for Google: Gemma 4 31B and 1112 ms for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemma 4 31B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between google/gemma-4-31b-it and qwen/qwen3.5-397b-a17b. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.