Qwen3 30B A3B vs Gemma 3 27B IT
Too close to call on our weighted score (Gemma 3 27B IT 60, Qwen3 30B A3B 58). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 30B A3B
58/100- ECI136.2
- Price$0.114 / $0.50
- Context131K
GoogleGemma 3 27B IT
60/100- ECI130.0
- Price$0.08 / $0.20
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (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 and Gemma 3 27B IT on price. 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
- Lowest priceGemma 3 27B ITGemma 3 27B IT $0.11 · Qwen3 30B A3B $0.21 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3 30B A3B 131,072 · Gemma 3 27B IT 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 3 27B ITQwen3 30B A3B: Text · Gemma 3 27B IT: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 30B A3B | Gemma 3 27B IT |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 61 | 53 |
| Price | 25% | 82 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 50 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 58/100 | 60/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemma 3 27B ITGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 136.2 (best) | 130.0 |
| ECI rank | #112 of 148 (best) | #125 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 61.7% (best) | 47.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 62.8% (best) | 22.5% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.114 | $0.08 (best) |
| Output | $0.50 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.21 | $0.11 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 8 providers | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 8 | 10 (best) |
| Released | Apr 28, 2025 | Mar 12, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Aug 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 30B A3B$2.14
- Gemma 3 27B IT$1.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 30B A3B or Gemma 3 27B IT?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (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 and Gemma 3 27B IT on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 30B A3B or Gemma 3 27B IT?
Gemma 3 27B IT is cheaper at $0.08 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). 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 $0.21 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) and Gemma 3 27B IT 130.0 (#125 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%, Gemma 3 27B IT 47.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 30B A3B 62.8%, Gemma 3 27B IT 22.5%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 30B A3B and Gemma 3 27B IT 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 30B A3B and Gemma 3 27B IT share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384, Gemma 3 27B IT up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text; Gemma 3 27B IT accepts text and images. Gemma 3 27B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 30B A3B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. Gemma 3 27B IT came out Mar 12, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteThree-way comparison
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle · ECI 133.9
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs GPT OSS 20BOpenAI · ECI 137.8
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemma 3 27B IT vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemma 3 27B IT vs Llama 4 Scout 17B InstructMeta · ECI 129.7
