Qwen3.8 27B vs Granite 4.2 30B

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Granite 4.2 30B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Granite 4.2 30B is $0.16 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.20 and Granite 4.2 30B is $0.65 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper on this metric.

Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262,144 tokens and Granite 4.2 30B supports 131,072 tokens.

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Granite 4.2 30B is open weight.

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Qwen3.8 27B has a sourced maximum output of 131,072 tokens; Granite 4.2 30B's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Granite 4.2 30B has 1, so Qwen3.8 27B has broader tracked availability.

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.