Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs Qwen3.5-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Qwen3.5-27B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 13 to Qwen3.5-27B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 8
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.7 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5-27B's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 60.6 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU-Pro, 77.2% to 86.1%.
Qwen3.5-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.
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 | Gemma 4 12B | Δ | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 12B43.4 | Margin→ 17.2 | Qwen3.5-27B60.6 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin→ 5.2 | Qwen3.5-27B82.7 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B52.0 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B64.9 |
| Math | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Multilingual | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B82.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 12B69.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B95.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 77.2%B 86.1%Winner: Qwen3.5-27BΔ 8.9MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.2%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 86.1%. Qwen3.5-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 78.8%B 85.5%Winner: Qwen3.5-27BΔ 6.7GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 85.5%. Qwen3.5-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.5-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | Qwen3.5-27B262K | Qwen3.5-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
ReasoningQwen3.5-27B wins5 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | 85.5% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | 86.1% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 5.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.0% | 33.8% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.3% | 85.8% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 14.8% | 22.2% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -51.9% | -42.0% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 16.0% | 21.0% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.8% | 79.7% | Qwen3.5-27B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.7 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 77.2% and 86.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 versus 77.5. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.