Free to start

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Reflection Beam 1.0

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Gemma 4 31B and Reflection Beam 1.0. Switch by changing the model name.

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 published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes and the lower measured p50 time to first token. Reflection Beam 1.0 has the larger context window.

$0.45365/1MGoogle: Gemma 4 31B cheapest route

$1.31875/1MReflection Beam 1.0 cheapest route

665 msGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT via crusoe

2491 msReflection Beam 1.0 fastest measured p50 TTFT via nebius

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. 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 31BReflection Beam 1.0

Model idgoogle/gemma-4-31b-itreflection/beam

Publisher Google AI Studio reflection

AI IQ IQ 101#116 IQ 113#61

Context262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens

Credits provider routes161

Cheapest route$0.45365/1M$1.31875/1M

Cached input$0.03798/1M to $0.26375/1MNot published

Privacy posturehas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)has ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT665 ms via crusoe2491 ms via nebius

Highest measured throughput146 tok/s via crusoenot enough data

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

Modes chat chat

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

Overview16 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Reflection Beam 1.0 routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.349 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.248 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash48 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K344 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B42 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Google: Gemma 4 31B40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B35 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 Reflection Beam 1.0?

Google: Gemma 4 31B has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes and the lower measured p50 time to first token. Reflection Beam 1.0 has the larger context window.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Reflection Beam 1.0 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.45365/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B and $1.31875/1M for Reflection Beam 1.0. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Reflection Beam 1.0 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 665 ms for Google: Gemma 4 31B and 2491 ms for Reflection Beam 1.0. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemma 4 31B and Reflection Beam 1.0 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 reflection/beam. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.