Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct leads Gemma 3 12B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.7 to 3.8, and Gemma 3 12B costs 6.2x less per output token ($0.1625 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 27 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 12B Replace Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Gemma 3 12BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
28.0
Output $/M
$0.1625
23
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
4
vs boards won of 27 shared

Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 6.2x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $1.00 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

Model AGemma 3 12BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
27
Gemma 3 12B only
16
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
8
Like-for-like categories
6 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 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 19.8 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: creative writing: Gemma 3 12B 1331 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 1174, 26.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 12B $0.1625 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 6.2x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 12B takes 131K tokens, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 Coder 32B InstructTies
Coding21
Intelligence11
Reasoning41
Math20
Knowledge41
General100
All shared boards234
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured16.4%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured47.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
AA Coding Index5.8Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%29.5%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SciCode16.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: coding12811276Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: software and IT13131261Gemma 3 12B
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index3.86.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5119.5Gemma 3 12B
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)30.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)34.9%41.7%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%3.5%Gemma 3 12B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)39.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13091251Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: expert12481221Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13181269Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Math Index18.3Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)18.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
OTIS Mock AIME16.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
GSM8KNot measured93.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math13071251Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13361243Gemma 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.5%63.5%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MMLUNot measured79.1%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured70.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13661221Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341187Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: legal and government13811257Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: business and finance13761224Gemma 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index100
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
IFBench36.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)8.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
DTBench48.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMCA4.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13341230Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: instruction following12991223Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: creative writing13311174Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: English13491248Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: non-English13181205Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1222Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1370Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: Russian13351228Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: multi-turn13341222Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: longer queries13171251Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: writing and language13071191Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12971150Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 28 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 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B 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 Coder 32B Instruct$0.0012Fits 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 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds 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 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds 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 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 12BQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025November 11, 2024
Context window131K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.075$0.66
Output $/Mtok$0.1625$1.00
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 Coder 32B 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 6.2x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $1.00 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.1625 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

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

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

27 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 12B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next