Lyria 3.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
At a Glance
| Compare |  Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind |  Ternary Bonsai 2 27BPrismML |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.075Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.50Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 22, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 18, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Lyria 3.5 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | PrismML |
| Family | Lyria | Bonsai 2 |
| Model | Lyria 3.5 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B |
| Version | Lyria 3.5 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-29 | 2026-09-17 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text, Audio | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 27.4B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | generation, image-to-music, lyrics, music-generation, synthid, vocals | chat, generation, reasoning, tools, vision |
| Base model | Unknown | Qwen3.8 27B |
| Effective bit width | Unknown | 1.76 bits per weight |
| Language model size | Unknown | 5.93 GB |
| Weight format | Unknown | Ternary g128 with FP16 group scales |
Lyria 3.5 Capabilities
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Lyria 3.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B FAQs
Is Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Lyria 3.5 and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
Only Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has a directly sourced input price: $0.075 per million tokens. Only Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has a directly sourced output price: $0.50 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
Lyria 3.5 has the larger sourced context window. Lyria 3.5 supports 1,049K and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B be self-hosted?+
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Lyria 3.5 is not marked open weight; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B is open weight.
Can Lyria 3.5 and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B understand images?+
Lyria 3.5 is documented with image input; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Lyria 3.5 is 66K and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B is —.
Do Lyria 3.5 and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B support reasoning and tool use?+
Lyria 3.5: image input. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
Lyria 3.5 has 2 sourced provider routes; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has 1, so Lyria 3.5 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Lyria 3.5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.