ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemma 3 27B IT vs GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3 30B A3B

Too close to call on our weighted score (GPT-4.1 nano 63, Gemma 3 27B IT 60, Qwen3 30B A3B 58). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. 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

  2. OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 nano

    Released Apr 14, 2025Deprecated

    63/100
    • ECI129.6
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 nano

  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

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GPT-4.1 nano 63/100, Gemma 3 27B IT 60/100, Qwen3 30B A3B 58/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 30B A3B for raw capability, Gemma 3 27B IT on price and GPT-4.1 nano for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3 30B A3BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 · Gemma 3 27B IT 130.0 · GPT-4.1 nano 129.6
  • Lowest priceGemma 3 27B ITGemma 3 27B IT $0.11 · GPT-4.1 nano $0.175 · Qwen3 30B A3B $0.21 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4.1 nanoGPT-4.1 nano 1,047,576 · Gemma 3 27B IT 131,072 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemma 3 27B IT and GPT-4.1 nanoGemma 3 27B IT: Text, Images · GPT-4.1 nano: Text, Images · Qwen3 30B A3B: Text
  • Self-hostingGemma 3 27B IT and Qwen3 30B A3BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemma 3 27B ITGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 30B A3B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%535261
Price25%958682
Inputs & features15%506035
Context window10%246124
Overall100%60/10063/10058/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Gemma 3 27B IT vs GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3 30B A3B specifications side by side
SpecificationGemma 3 27B ITGoogleGPT-4.1 nanoOpenAIQwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)130.0129.6136.2 (best)
ECI rank#125 of 148#127 of 148#112 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions47.7%48.9%61.7% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics22.5%28.9%62.8% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—6.0%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.08 (best)$0.10$0.114
Output$0.20 (best)$0.40$0.50
Cached input—$0.025—
Blended (3:1)$0.11 (best)$0.175$0.21
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 9 providersOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 8 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,047,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model ID—gpt-4.1-nano—
API providers1020 (best)8
ReleasedMar 12, 2025Apr 14, 2025Apr 28, 2025
Knowledge cutoffAug 2024Apr 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.

  • Gemma 3 27B IT$1.20
  • GPT-4.1 nano$1.80
  • Qwen3 30B A3B$2.14
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemma 3 27B IT, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3 30B A3B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GPT-4.1 nano 63/100, Gemma 3 27B IT 60/100, Qwen3 30B A3B 58/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 30B A3B for raw capability, Gemma 3 27B IT on price and GPT-4.1 nano for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B IT, GPT-4.1 nano 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). GPT-4.1 nano costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official OpenAI 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 GPT-4.1 nano (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), Gemma 3 27B IT 130.0 (#125 of 148) and GPT-4.1 nano 129.6 (#127 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (130.3–138.7 vs 124.1–132.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3 30B A3B 61.7%, GPT-4.1 nano 48.9%, Gemma 3 27B IT 47.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 30B A3B 62.8%, GPT-4.1 nano 28.9%, Gemma 3 27B IT 22.5%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 3 27B IT, GPT-4.1 nano 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?

GPT-4.1 nano has the largest context window at 1,047,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Gemma 3 27B IT and 131,072 for Qwen3 30B A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 3 27B IT up to 131,072, GPT-4.1 nano up to 32,768, Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemma 3 27B IT accepts text and images; GPT-4.1 nano accepts text and images; Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text. Gemma 3 27B IT 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; GPT-4.1 nano is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 30B A3B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. GPT-4.1 nano came out Apr 14, 2025; Gemma 3 27B IT came out Mar 12, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 3 27B IT Aug 2024, GPT-4.1 nano Apr 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