Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct leads Gemma 3 12B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 3.8, and Gemma 3 12B costs 2.5x less per output token ($0.1625 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 37 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 12B Replace Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Gemma 3 12BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
28.0
Output $/M
$0.1625
25
Qwen2.5 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.40
12
vs boards won of 37 shared

Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 12B for output tokens 2.5x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $0.40 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

Model AGemma 3 12BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen2.5 72B InstructQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
37
Gemma 3 12B only
6
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
16
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 12B not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 23.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 3 12B 10.8% against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 34.5%, 23.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 12B $0.1625 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 12B takes 131K tokens, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 33K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 3 12BBarsQwen2.5 72B InstructTies
Coding13
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning42
Math50
Knowledge41
General113
All shared boards2512
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index13
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index5.8Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%27.6%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
SciCode16.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%4.5%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
WeirdMLNot measured16.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding12811292Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT13131292Gemma 3 12B
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index3.87.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5129.0Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.8%34.5%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
METR time horizonsNot measured35.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured16.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured5.7%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)30.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index42
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)34.9%49.1%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%3.6%Gemma 3 12B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)39.5%49.1%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BIG-Bench HardNot measured79.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13091271Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: expert12481245Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13181279Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Math Index18.314.0Gemma 3 12B
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)18.3%14.0%Gemma 3 12B
OTIS Mock AIME16.7%8.1%Gemma 3 12B
MATH level 5Not measured63.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math13071283Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13361290Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.5%72.0%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
MMLUNot measured85.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured94.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13661275Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341258Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: legal and government13811288Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: business and finance13761253Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index113
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
IFBench36.7%36.9%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)8.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
DTBench48.8%62.9%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMCA4.5%13.4%Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
HellaSwagNot measured84.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured82.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured82.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13341269Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: instruction following12991254Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: creative writing13311221Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: English13491283Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: non-English13181252Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1273Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German13701234Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1180Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1188Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1280Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1255Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian13351264Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: multi-turn13341272Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: longer queries13171281Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: writing and language13071247Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12971211Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.0002Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.0042Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.017Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 12BQwen2.5 72B Instruct
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025September 19, 2024
Context window131K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.075$0.36
Output $/Mtok$0.1625$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 12B for output tokens 2.5x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $0.40 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.1625 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B, with 131K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparison based on?

37 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 3 12B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next