Model Comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.4x cheaper per token.

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

6 benchmarks

Gemma 3 27B outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GSM8k, MATH, MMLU-Pro), while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (HumanEval, LiveCodeBench, MBPP).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.1x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.20/1M tokens) is 2.2x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemma 3 27B is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3 27B
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input tokens$0.09
Output tokens$0.09
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

5.0B diff

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct has 5.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 27B, making it 18.5% larger.

Google
Gemma 3 27B
27.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
27.0B
Gemma 3 27B
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemma 3 27B accepts 131,072 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Gemma 3 27B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Google
Gemma 3 27B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3 27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

Gemma 3 27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3 27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

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

Gemma 3 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3 27B was released on 2025-03-12, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Gemma 3 27B is 6 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Gemma 3 27B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

5mo newer
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.6 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 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

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

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Larger context window (131,072 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher GSM8k score (95.9% vs 91.1%)
Higher MATH score (89.0% vs 57.2%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (67.5% vs 50.4%)
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher HumanEval score (92.7% vs 87.8%)
Higher LiveCodeBench score (31.4% vs 29.7%)
Higher MBPP score (90.2% vs 74.4%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3 27B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Gemma 3 27B is made by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct 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 27B scores GSM8k: 95.9%, IFEval: 90.4%, MATH: 89.0%, HumanEval: 87.8%, BIG-Bench Hard: 87.6%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. Gemma 3 27B costs $0.10/M input and $0.20/M output via deepinfra. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.
Gemma 3 27B supports 131K tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (131K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.09/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Gemma vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 3 27B is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.