Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads Gemma 3 27B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.7 to 4.9, and Gemma 3 27B costs 6.9x less per output token ($0.30 vs $2.08 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 47 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 27B Replace Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Gemma 3 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
31.4
Output $/M
$0.30
0
Qwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.08
47
vs boards won of 47 shared

Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B: 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 6.9x cheaper ($0.30 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Model AGemma 3 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwenNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
47
Gemma 3 27B only
19
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
4
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, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 83.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 3 27B 10.5% against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 93.6%, 83.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 27B $0.30 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B $2.08 per million output tokens, 6.9x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 27B takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 262K.

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 27BBarsQwen3.5-122B-A10BTies
Coding05
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning07
Math02
Knowledge04
General027
All shared boards047
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Aider polyglot4.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1361Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
AA Coding Index10.143.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
SciCode23.3%39.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%31.1%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: coding13221436Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: software and IT13541436Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1351Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.917.7Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Epoch Capabilities Index130.0Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.5%93.6%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.8%85.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.4%25.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13401421Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: expert13041431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13531431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: diagrams11561249Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: homework11601261Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Kagi LLM Benchmark35.1%Not measuredOnly 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
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Math Index20.7Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)20.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
OTIS Mock AIME22.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
MATH level 574.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: math13121431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13271431Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)66.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
GeoBench52.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: science13831432Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13911423Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: legal and government13751422Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: business and finance13601414Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
FACTS Benchmark Suite29.1%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index027
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
IFBench31.8%75.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)7.3%76.3%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
DTBench52.5%84.3%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMCA12.3%32.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)79.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text13581417Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: instruction following13211399Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: creative writing13451368Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision11651244Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: English13771428Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: non-English13341401Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Chinese13461463Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: German13621425Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Japanese12871367Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Korean13081353Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: French13681443Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Spanish13491425Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Russian13491400Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: Polish13451398Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: multi-turn13451416Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: longer queries13331410Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: writing and language13471387Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13201366Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: English11881249Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: Chinese11641301Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: reading text11561251Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: humor11661243Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
LMArena Vision: captioning1151Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1196Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing11771220Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Neither model has a result on the other 17 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.0013Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.0049Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.019Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.019Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.073Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 27BQwen3.5-122B-A10B
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 12, 2025February 25, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.08$0.26
Output $/Mtok$0.30$2.08
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 6.9x cheaper ($0.30 vs $2.08 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs $0.26 and $2.08. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comparison based on?

47 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 3 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next