Qwen3.8 27B vs Gemma 4 31B

At a Glance

Compare
Gemma 4 31BGoogle DeepMind
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.090Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.34Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K262K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 3, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BGemma 4 31B
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,439.27100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,441.68100% of row best · rating · gemma-4-31b; 95% CI [1434.13929794, 1449.22204224]; votes 5894; rank 64
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,272.12100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1262.21853873, 1282.01179703]; votes 4577; rank 351,275.98100% of row best · rating · gemma-4-31b; 95% CI [1269.84273447, 1282.11308989]; votes 35713; rank 33
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 2 ties0 benchmark winsNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.8-27BGemma 4 31B
DeveloperQwenGoogle DeepMind
FamilyQwen3 8 27bGemma 4
ModelQwen3.8-27BGemma 4 31B
VersionQwen3.8-27BGemma 4 31B
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-03-11
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K262K
Total parameters27.8B31B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0apache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Cerebras (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

Gemma 4 31B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDgoogle/gemma-4-31B-it

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs Gemma 4 31B FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Gemma 4 31B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Gemma 4 31B is $0.090 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 31B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and Gemma 4 31B is $0.34 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 31B is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Qwen3.8 27B is 262K and Gemma 4 31B is 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: Neither model leads outside the score tolerance on the verified common benchmarks.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Gemma 4 31B is open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and Gemma 4 31B understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Gemma 4 31B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and Gemma 4 31B is —.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and Gemma 4 31B support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemma 4 31B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Gemma 4 31B has 5, so Gemma 4 31B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Gemma 4 31B?+

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.

Send Feedback