Model Comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs Gemma 3 27B

Gemma 3 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3 12B is 2.0x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

26 benchmarks

Gemma 3 12B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DocVQA, FACTS Grounding, TextVQA, VQAv2 (val)), while Gemma 3 27B is better at 22 benchmarks (AI2D, BIG-Bench Extra Hard, BIG-Bench Hard, Bird-SQL (dev), ChartQA, ECLeKTic, Global-MMLU-Lite, GPQA, GSM8k, HiddenMath, HumanEval, IFEval, InfoVQA, LiveCodeBench, MATH, MathVista-Mini, MBPP, MMLU-Pro, MMMU (val), Natural2Code, SimpleQA, WMT24++).

Gemma 3 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun Apr 26 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemma 3 12B costs less

For input processing, Gemma 3 12B ($0.05/1M tokens) is 2.0x cheaper than Gemma 3 27B ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemma 3 12B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 2.0x cheaper than Gemma 3 27B ($0.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemma 3 27B is more expensive than Gemma 3 12B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Apr 26 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3 12B
Input tokens$0.05
Output tokens$0.10
Best providerDeepinfra
Google
Gemma 3 27B
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

15.0B diff

Gemma 3 27B has 15.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 12B, making it 125.0% larger.

Google
Gemma 3 12B
12.0Bparameters
Google
Gemma 3 27B
27.0Bparameters
12.0B
Gemma 3 12B
27.0B
Gemma 3 27B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 131,072 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

Google
Gemma 3 12B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Google
Gemma 3 27B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Sun Apr 26 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemma 3 12B and Gemma 3 27B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemma 3 12B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemma 3 27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Gemma.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Gemma 3 12B

Gemma

Open weights

Gemma 3 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Both models were released on 2025-03-12.

They likely represent similar generations of model development.

Gemma 3 12B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

Gemma 3 27B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Gemma 3 12B is available from DeepInfra. Gemma 3 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita.

Gemma 3 12B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.05/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.10/1M

Gemma 3 27B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.11/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher DocVQA score (87.1% vs 86.6%)
Higher FACTS Grounding score (75.8% vs 74.9%)
Higher TextVQA score (67.7% vs 65.1%)
Higher VQAv2 (val) score (71.6% vs 71.0%)
Google
Higher AI2D score (84.5% vs 84.2%)
Higher BIG-Bench Extra Hard score (19.3% vs 16.3%)
Higher BIG-Bench Hard score (87.6% vs 85.7%)
Higher Bird-SQL (dev) score (54.4% vs 47.9%)
Higher ChartQA score (78.0% vs 75.7%)
Higher ECLeKTic score (16.7% vs 10.3%)
Higher Global-MMLU-Lite score (75.1% vs 69.5%)
Higher GPQA score (42.4% vs 40.9%)
Higher GSM8k score (95.9% vs 94.4%)
Higher HiddenMath score (60.3% vs 54.5%)
Higher HumanEval score (87.8% vs 85.4%)
Higher IFEval score (90.4% vs 88.9%)
Higher InfoVQA score (70.6% vs 64.9%)
Higher LiveCodeBench score (29.7% vs 24.6%)
Higher MATH score (89.0% vs 83.8%)
Higher MathVista-Mini score (67.6% vs 62.9%)
Higher MBPP score (74.4% vs 73.0%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (67.5% vs 60.6%)
Higher MMMU (val) score (64.9% vs 59.6%)
Higher Natural2Code score (84.5% vs 80.7%)
Higher SimpleQA score (10.0% vs 6.3%)
Higher WMT24++ score (53.4% vs 51.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3 12B
Google
Gemma 3 27B

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3 12B vs Gemma 3 27B

Gemma 3 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3 12B is made by Google and Gemma 3 27B is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 3 12B scores GSM8k: 94.4%, IFEval: 88.9%, DocVQA: 87.1%, BIG-Bench Hard: 85.7%, HumanEval: 85.4%. Gemma 3 27B scores GSM8k: 95.9%, IFEval: 90.4%, MATH: 89.0%, HumanEval: 87.8%, BIG-Bench Hard: 87.6%.
Gemma 3 12B is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemma 3 12B costs $0.05/M input and $0.10/M output via deepinfra. Gemma 3 27B costs $0.10/M input and $0.20/M output via deepinfra.
Gemma 3 12B supports 131K tokens and Gemma 3 27B supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include input pricing ($0.05 vs $0.10/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.