Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3 235B A22B
Qwen3 235B A22B leads the LLM Stats Score 15.6 to 8.3. Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B cost the same.
Google · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3 235B A22B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 15.6 to 8.3, ranking #228 overall.
In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3 235B A22B wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
Gemma 3 27B also accepts a larger context window (131,072 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemma 3 27B
- you process long inputs — it offers a 131,072 token context window
Choose Qwen3 235B A22B
- overall performance matters — it scores 15.6 and ranks #228 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 6 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2025
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
27 reported for Gemma 3 27B · 23 for Qwen3 235B A22B
Gemma 3 27B outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GSM8k, MATH), while Qwen3 235B A22B is better at 4 benchmarks (GPQA, LiveCodeBench, MBPP, MMLU-Pro).
Qwen3 235B A22B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.08/1M tokens) is 1.3x cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.16/1M tokens) is 1.6x more expensive than Qwen3 235B A22B ($0.10/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B cost the same.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3 235B A22B has 208.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 27B, making it 770.4% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemma 3 27B accepts 131,072 input tokens compared to Qwen3 235B A22B's 128,000 tokens. Gemma 3 27B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3 235B A22B is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Gemma 3 27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3 235B A22B 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
Qwen3 235B A22B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemma 3 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Qwen3 235B A22B uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Gemma
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemma 3 27B was released on 2025-03-12, while Qwen3 235B A22B was released on 2025-04-29.
Qwen3 235B A22B is 2 months newer than Gemma 3 27B.
Mar 12, 2025
1.5 years ago
Apr 29, 2025
1.4 years ago
1mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Gemma 3 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3 235B A22B is available from Fireworks, DeepInfra, Novita, Together.
Gemma 3 27B
Qwen3 235B A22B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3 235B A22B.