Model Comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemma 3 12B is 15.6x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Gemma 3 12B outperforms in 1 benchmarks (IFEval), while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMLU-Pro).

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Thu Apr 16 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 6.0x cheaper than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemma 3 12B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 30.0x cheaper than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ($3.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is more expensive than Gemma 3 12B.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3 12B
Input tokens$0.05
Output tokens$0.10
Best providerDeepinfra
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$3.00
Best providerFireworks
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

223.0B diff

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 has 223.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 12B, making it 1858.3% larger.

Google
Gemma 3 12B
12.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
235.0Bparameters
12.0B
Gemma 3 12B
235.0B
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Gemma 3 12B's 131,072 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

Google
Gemma 3 12B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
Input262,144 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3 12B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does not.

Gemma 3 12B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3 12B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3 12B is licensed under Gemma, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 3 12B

Gemma

Open weights

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3 12B was released on 2025-03-12, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 was released on 2025-07-25.

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is 5 months newer than Gemma 3 12B.

Gemma 3 12B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Jul 25, 2025

8 months ago

4mo newer

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. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is available from Fireworks, Novita.

Gemma 3 12B

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

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher IFEval score (88.9% vs 87.8%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Larger context window (262,144 tokens)
Higher GPQA score (81.1% vs 40.9%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (84.4% vs 60.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3 12B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemma 3 12B is made by Google and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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%. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 scores MMLU-Redux: 93.8%, AIME 2025: 92.3%, WritingBench: 88.3%, IFEval: 87.8%, Creative Writing v3: 86.1%.
Gemma 3 12B is 6.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemma 3 12B costs $0.05/M input and $0.10/M output via deepinfra. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 costs $0.30/M input and $3.00/M output via fireworks.
Gemma 3 12B supports 131K tokens and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (131K vs 262K), input pricing ($0.05 vs $0.30/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Gemma vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 3 12B is developed by Google and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.