Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Qwen
Qwen

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Gemma 3 27B wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Gemma 3 27B
Context Window
Gemma 3 27B
Speed
Gemma 3 27B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemma 3 27BQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemma 3 27BQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorGoogleQwen
ReleasedMar 2025Oct 2024

Gemma 3 27B Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemma 3 27B with:

Compare Qwen2.5 7B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.04/M tokens. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.10/M tokens.
Gemma 3 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 9.6, compared to Qwen2.5 7B Instruct's score of N/A.
Gemma 3 27B has a 128,000 token context window, while Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window.
Gemma 3 27B supports vision. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does not support vision.