Gemma 3 27B vs GLM 4.6V
GLM 4.6V leads Gemma 3 27B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 11.2 to 4.9, and Gemma 3 27B costs 3.0x less per output token ($0.30 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 38 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6V: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.30 vs $0.90 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 38
- Gemma 3 27B only
- 28
- GLM 4.6V only
- 0
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 4.6V
GLM 4.6V leads, 11.2 against 4.9.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Gemma 3 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 131K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 3 27B
Gemma 3 27B $0.0002, GLM 4.6V $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 3 27B not benchmarked, GLM 4.6V not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 64.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): Gemma 3 27B 20.7% against GLM 4.6V 85.3%, 64.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 3 27B $0.30 against GLM 4.6V $0.90 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 131K tokens.
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.
| Category | Gemma 3 27B | Bars | GLM 4.6V | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 4 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 6 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 2 | 3 | ||
| General | 6 | 12 | ||
| All shared boards | 9 | 29 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 4.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| AA Coding Index | 10.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 13.7% | 41.1% | GLM 4.6V |
| SciCode | 23.3% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | 14.4% | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1322 | 1389 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1354 | 1391 | GLM 4.6V |
| SciCode | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 4.9 | 11.2 | GLM 4.6V |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.0 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 0.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 10.5% | 31.6% | GLM 4.6V |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 29.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.8% | 71.9% | GLM 4.6V |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.4% | 9.6% | GLM 4.6V |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 47.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1340 | 1367 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1304 | 1371 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1353 | 1391 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1156 | 1182 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1160 | 1155 | Gemma 3 27B |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 35.1% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 20.7 | 85.3 | GLM 4.6V |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 20.7% | 85.3% | GLM 4.6V |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 22.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| MATH level 5 | 74.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1312 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1327 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 66.9% | 79.9% | GLM 4.6V |
| GeoBench | 52.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1383 | 1389 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1391 | 1389 | Gemma 3 27B |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1375 | 1393 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1360 | 1359 | Gemma 3 27B |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 29.1% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| 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
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index612
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 31.8% | 30.1% | Gemma 3 27B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 7.3% | 48.7% | GLM 4.6V |
| DTBench | 52.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMCA | 12.3% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | 79.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1358 | 1376 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1321 | 1350 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1345 | 1347 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision | 1165 | 1164 | Gemma 3 27B |
| LMArena Text: English | 1377 | 1395 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1334 | 1358 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1346 | 1425 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: German | 1362 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1287 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1308 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1368 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1349 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1349 | 1339 | Gemma 3 27B |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1345 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1345 | 1359 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1333 | 1357 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1347 | 1347 | Gemma 3 27B |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1320 | 1343 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1188 | 1179 | Gemma 3 27B |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1164 | 1217 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1156 | 1171 | GLM 4.6V |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1166 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | 1151 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1196 | Not measured | Only Gemma 3 27B measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1177 | 1113 | Gemma 3 27B |
| 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
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | GLM 4.6V | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 3 27B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Google Gemma 3 27B | Z.ai GLM 4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | March 12, 2025 | December 8, 2025 |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.08 | $0.30 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.90 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than GLM 4.6V for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($0.30 vs $0.90 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6V?
Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 and $0.90. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 27B or GLM 4.6V?
Neither: both take 131K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 27B vs GLM 4.6V comparison based on?
38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.6V's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.