Model Comparison
Gemma 3 12B Instruct
vs. Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Gemma 3 12B Instruct
100.0 value score
27.5 reasoning / $0.14/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 3 12B Instruct
$0.09/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
41.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
17.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemma 3 12B Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 3 12B Instruct is 4.2x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 3 12B Instruct by 14.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 3 12B Instruct by 11.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) wins 9 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 3 12B Instruct
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 3 12B Instruct | Top Pick Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.09/1M | $0.38/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.29/1M | $2.25/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.14/1M | $0.84/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Mar 12, 2025 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 162.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1335ms |
| Latency | — | 1335ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 25.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 27.5 | 41.9 |
| Intelligence | 8.8 | 31.5 |
| Coding | 6.3 | 17.6 |
| Math | 18.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 34.9% | 81.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 59.5% | — |
| HLE | 4.8% | 12.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | 13.7% | — |
| MATH 500 | 85.3% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 18.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 22.0% | — |
| SciCode | 17.4% | 1.3% |
| LCR | 6.7% | 56.7% |
| IFBench | 36.7% | 36.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 10.8% | 85.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | 25.8% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 3 12B Instruct offers the best value at $0.09/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 41.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 17.6 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemma 3 12B Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
