Model Comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3 27B is 3.2x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Gemma 3 27B outperforms in 1 benchmarks (IFEval), while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 6 benchmarks (AI2D, GPQA, MathVista-Mini, MMLU-Pro, MMMU (val), SimpleQA).

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Jun 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemma 3 27B costs less

For input processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 2.0x cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.20/1M tokens) is 4.9x cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is more expensive than Gemma 3 27B.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Mon Jun 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Gemma 3 27B

Input tokens$0.10

Output tokens$0.20

Best providerDeepinfra

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input tokens$0.20

Output tokens$0.99

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

4.0B diff

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking has 4.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 27B, making it 14.8% larger.

Gemma 3 27B

27.0Bparameters

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

31.0Bparameters

27.0B

Gemma 3 27B

31.0B

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 131,072 tokens. Gemma 3 27B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.

Gemma 3 27B

Input131,072 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input131,072 tokens

Output32,768 tokens

Mon Jun 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking support multimodal inputs.

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

Gemma 3 27B

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking 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

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3 27B was released on 2025-03-12, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 6 months newer than Gemma 3 27B.

Gemma 3 27B

Mar 12, 2025

1.2 years ago

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

8 months ago

6mo 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 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

Gemma 3 27B

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.11/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.29/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.99/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Gemma 3 27B

View details

Google

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Higher IFEval score (90.4% vs 81.7%)

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Higher AI2D score (86.9% vs 84.5%)

Higher GPQA score (74.4% vs 42.4%)

Higher MathVista-Mini score (81.9% vs 67.6%)

Higher MMLU-Pro score (80.5% vs 67.5%)

Higher MMMU (val) score (76.0% vs 64.9%)

Higher SimpleQA score (23.9% vs 10.0%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Gemma 3 27B	Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Which is better, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3 27B is made by Google and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemma 3 27B compare to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking in benchmarks?

Gemma 3 27B scores GSM8k: 95.9%, IFEval: 90.4%, MATH: 89.0%, HumanEval: 87.8%, BIG-Bench Hard: 87.6%. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%.

Is Gemma 3 27B cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemma 3 27B is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemma 3 27B costs $0.10/M input and $0.20/M output via deepinfra. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.20/M input and $0.99/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemma 3 27B supports 131K tokens and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Key differences include input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.20/M), licensing (Gemma vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemma 3 27B is developed by Google and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.