Compare/Gemma 3 27B Instruct vs Qwen3.5 Omni Plus

Gemma 3 27B InstructvsQwen3.5 Omni Plus

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Google

Gemma 3 27B Instruct

Input
$0/M
Output
$0/M
Speed
TTFT
Alibaba

Qwen3.5 Omni Plus

Input
$0.4/M
Output
$4.8/M
Speed
49 tok/s
TTFT
2.51s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
Faster (tok/s)
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Lower Latency
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricGemma 3 27B InstructQwen3.5 Omni Plus
Input ($/M tokens)$0$0.4
Output ($/M tokens)$0$4.8
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Gemma 3 27B Instruct$0.00
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus$0.88

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
49 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Gemma 3 27B Instruct
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
2.51s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Gemma 3 27B Instruct and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Gemma 3 27B Instruct is strongest on Coding Index (10.1), Intelligence Index (7.4). Qwen3.5 Omni Plus leads on Intelligence Index (31.3).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Google and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Google tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Gemma 3 27B Instruct costs $0.00 ($0/year); Qwen3.5 Omni Plus costs $84.00 ($1008/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Gemma 3 27B Instruct ≈ $0.00/run, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $11.60/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Gemma 3 27B Instruct ≈ $0/run, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $560/run. Gemma 3 27B Instruct becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
7.431.3
Coding Index
10.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Gemma 3 27B Instruct1 wins
1 winsQwen3.5 Omni Plus

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B Instruct or Qwen3.5 Omni Plus?

Gemma 3 27B Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.00/M tokens vs $1.50/M for Qwen3.5 Omni Plus.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens faster at 49 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus has lower time-to-first-token (2.51s vs —s).

When should I use Gemma 3 27B Instruct vs Qwen3.5 Omni Plus?

Choose based on your priorities: Gemma 3 27B Instruct for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.