Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemma 3 27B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Gemma 3 27B #164 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemma 3 27B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 4 to Gemma 3 27B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 21
- Gemma 3 27B only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemma 3 27B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is priced at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 3 27B. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 32K for Gemma 3 27B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 3 27BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 3 27BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 3 27BNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 3 27BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 3 27BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemma 3 27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | Gemma 3 27B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 3 27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Gemma 3 27B31 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Gemma 3 27B2.04 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Gemma 3 27B32K | Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemma 3 27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | 10.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 0.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | -144 | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemma 3 27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 21.2% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 10.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemma 3 27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 7.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 42.8% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 4.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | -65.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 12.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 89.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemma 3 27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 31.8% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemma 3 27B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemma 3 27B today?
Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens Gemma 3 27B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.