Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 27B vs GLM 4.6

GLM 4.6 leads Gemma 3 27B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.5 to 4.9, and Gemma 3 27B costs 7.3x less per output token ($0.30 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 42 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 27B Replace GLM 4.6
Gemma 3 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
31.4
Output $/M
$0.30
0
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
42
vs boards won of 42 shared

Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 7.3x cheaper ($0.30 vs $2.20 per million).

Model AGemma 3 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.6Z.ai8.8/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
42
Gemma 3 27B only
24
GLM 4.6 only
27
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 27B not benchmarked, GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 54.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 3 27B 10.5% against GLM 4.6 76.9%, 66.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 27B $0.30 against GLM 4.6 $2.20 per million output tokens, 7.3x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 27B takes 131K tokens, GLM 4.6 205K.

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 27BBarsGLM 4.6Ties
Coding05
Intelligence01
Agentic work02
Reasoning06
Math04
Knowledge05
General019
All shared boards042
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
Aider polyglot4.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured68.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1341Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding Index10.145.8GLM 4.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.1%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%69.5%GLM 4.6
SciCode23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%28.8%GLM 4.6
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured340.8Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding13221449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT13541455GLM 4.6
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1350Only GLM 4.6 measured
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index4.918.5GLM 4.6
Epoch Capabilities Index130.0Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1029Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1096Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1084Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1180Only GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.5%76.9%GLM 4.6
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)29.5%72.4%GLM 4.6
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured48.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured74.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.8%78.0%GLM 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.4%14.5%GLM 4.6
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13401440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: expert13041432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13531445GLM 4.6
LMArena Vision: diagrams1156Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: homework1160Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark35.1%45.7%GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
AIMENot measured92.7%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math Index20.786.0GLM 4.6
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)20.7%86.0%GLM 4.6
OTIS Mock AIME22.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
MATH level 574.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: math13121432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work13271447GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured56.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)66.9%82.9%GLM 4.6
GeoBench52.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: science13831456GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13911455GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: legal and government13751448GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: business and finance13601416GLM 4.6
FACTS Benchmark Suite29.1%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1174Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1145Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1150Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1161Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1128Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1165Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1108Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
IFBench31.8%43.4%GLM 4.6
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)7.3%54.0%GLM 4.6
DTBench52.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMCA12.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)79.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text13581440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following13211410GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing13451412GLM 4.6
LMArena Vision1165Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: English13771449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English13341426GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Chinese13461499GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: German13621447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Japanese12871393GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Korean13081400GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: French13681459GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Spanish13491436GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Russian13491418GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Polish13451447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn13451427GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries13331422GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language13471415GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13201409GLM 4.6
LMArena Vision: English1188Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1164Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1156Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: humor1166Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1151Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1196Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1177Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGLM 4.6Leader
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 27B$0.0002Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.0049Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.019Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window

Gemma 3 27B 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 27B and GLM 4.6
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 27BZ.ai GLM 4.6
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 12, 2025September 30, 2025
Context window131K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.08$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.30$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked8.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than GLM 4.6 for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 7.3x cheaper ($0.30 vs $2.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6?

Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6?

GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 27B vs GLM 4.6 comparison based on?

42 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 3 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.6's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next