ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 3 27B IT vs Qwen3 30B A3B

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 71 to 60 and 58 on our weighted score, though Gemma 3 27B IT is 37% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    71/100
    • ECI133.9
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

  2. Google

    Gemma 3 27B IT

    Released Mar 12, 2025

    60/100
    • ECI130.0
    • Price$0.08 / $0.20
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Gemma 3 27B IT

  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 30B A3B

    Released Apr 28, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI136.2
    • Price$0.114 / $0.50
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 30B A3B
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Gemma 3 27B IT (60) and Qwen3 30B A3B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Gemma 3 27B IT wins on price. Qwen3 30B A3B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3 30B A3BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 133.9 · Gemma 3 27B IT 130.0
  • Lowest priceGemma 3 27B ITGemma 3 27B IT $0.11 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Qwen3 30B A3B $0.21 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Gemma 3 27B IT 131,072 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Gemma 3 27B IT: Text, Images · Qwen3 30B A3B: Text
  • Self-hostingGemma 3 27B IT and Qwen3 30B A3BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemma 3 27B ITQwen3 30B A3B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%585361
Price25%869582
Inputs & features15%1005035
Context window10%612424
Overall100%71/10060/10058/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 3 27B IT vs Qwen3 30B A3B specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogleGemma 3 27B ITGoogleQwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)133.9130.0136.2 (best)
ECI rank#118 of 148#125 of 148#112 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—47.7%61.7% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—22.5%62.8% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10$0.08 (best)$0.114
Output$0.40$0.20 (best)$0.50
Cached input$0.01——
Blended (3:1)$0.175$0.11 (best)$0.21
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIMedian of 9 providersMedian of 8 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDgemini-2.5-flash-lite——
API providers20 (best)108
ReleasedJun 17, 2025Mar 12, 2025Apr 28, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Aug 2024—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
  • Gemma 3 27B IT$1.20
  • Qwen3 30B A3B$2.14
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Gemma 3 27B IT or Qwen3 30B A3B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Gemma 3 27B IT (60) and Qwen3 30B A3B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Gemma 3 27B IT wins on price. Qwen3 30B A3B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Gemma 3 27B IT or Qwen3 30B A3B?

Gemma 3 27B IT is cheaper at $0.08 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price); Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.114 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 8 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.11 per million tokens for Gemma 3 27B IT versus $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.6× as much) and $0.21 for Qwen3 30B A3B (1.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3 30B A3B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 (#112 of 148), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 133.9 (#118 of 148) and Gemma 3 27B IT 130.0 (#125 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (130.3–138.7 vs 129.8–136.3), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Gemma 3 27B IT and Qwen3 30B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 30B A3B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Gemma 3 27B IT and 131,072 for Qwen3 30B A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536, Gemma 3 27B IT up to 131,072, Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Gemma 3 27B IT accepts text and images; Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Gemma 3 27B IT and Qwen3 30B A3B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen3 30B A3B came out Apr 28, 2025; Gemma 3 27B IT came out Mar 12, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025, Gemma 3 27B IT Aug 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons