OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs apertus-70b

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs apertus-70b: 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 Google: Gemma 4 31B with the lower p50 TTFT.

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

$3.046578/1Mapertus-70b cheapest route

1359 msGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT via tinfoil

1913 msapertus-70b fastest measured p50 TTFT via regolo

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 31Bapertus-70b

Model idgoogle/gemma-4-31b-itswiss-ai/apertus-70b-instruct

Publisher Google AI Studio Regolo

AI IQ IQ 103#80 —

Context262,144 tokens30,000 tokens

Credits provider routes141

Cheapest route$0.4642/1M$3.046578/1M

Cached input$0.03798/1M to $0.211/1MNot published

Privacy posturehas provider E2EE routehas ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT1359 ms via tinfoil1913 ms via regolo

Highest measured throughput271 tok/s via lightningnot enough data

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

Modes chat chat

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

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

apertus-70b routes

Overview1 Credits routes

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 5.340 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
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b36 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.634 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B31 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 apertus-70b?

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or apertus-70b cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.4642/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B and $3.046578/1M for apertus-70b. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or apertus-70b faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 1359 ms for Google: Gemma 4 31B and 1913 ms for apertus-70b. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemma 4 31B and apertus-70b 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 swiss-ai/apertus-70b-instruct. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.