Model Comparison
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
vs. Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
42.1 reasoning / $0.11/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
42.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
25.3 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
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 1.1x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 3 27B Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) leads Gemma 3 27B Instruct by 11.7 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) leads Gemma 3 27B Instruct by 15.7 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) wins 15 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
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
—
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 3 27B Instruct | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.11/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.25/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15/1M | $0.11/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | Mar 12, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 64.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 798ms |
| Latency | — | 31603ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 56.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 30.4 | 42.1 |
| Intelligence | 10.3 | 32.4 |
| Coding | 9.6 | 25.3 |
| Math | 20.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 42.8% | 80.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 66.9% | — |
| HLE | 4.7% | 13.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 13.7% | — |
| MATH 500 | 88.3% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 20.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 25.3% | — |
| SciCode | 21.2% | 27.5% |
| LCR | 5.7% | 59.0% |
| IFBench | 31.8% | 66.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 10.5% | 86.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.8% | 24.2% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 42.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) reaches a 25.3 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
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
