Model Comparison
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
vs. GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Z AI
Recommended Pick
Z GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) 15 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
100.0 value score
30.4 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
$0.11/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
59.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
29.5 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 27B Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 3 27B Instruct is 5.0x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-4.6 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) leads Gemma 3 27B Instruct by 28.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) leads Gemma 3 27B Instruct by 19.9 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) wins 15 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 27B Instruct
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 3 27B Instruct | Top Pick Z GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.11/1M | $0.55/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.25/1M | $2.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15/1M | $0.96/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | |
| Release Date | Mar 12, 2025 | Sep 30, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 50.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1591ms |
| Latency | — | 41092ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 29.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 30.4 | 59.2 |
| Intelligence | 10.3 | 32.5 |
| Coding | 9.6 | 29.5 |
| Math | 20.7 | 86.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 42.8% | 78.0% |
| MMLU Pro | 66.9% | 82.9% |
| HLE | 4.7% | 13.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 13.7% | 69.5% |
| MATH 500 | 88.3% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 20.7% | 86.0% |
| AIME (Original) | 25.3% | — |
| SciCode | 21.2% | 38.4% |
| LCR | 5.7% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 31.8% | 43.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 10.5% | 70.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.8% | 25.0% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 3 27B Instruct offers the best value at $0.11/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 59.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) reaches a 29.5 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 27B Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
