gemma-4-12b-it vs Qwen3.5-9B on shared benchmarks: Qwen is overall winner beating gemma in 5/8 benchmarks despite a smaller footprint
Summary
Qwen3.5-9B outperforms gemma-4-12b-it on 5 of 8 benchmarks despite having a smaller footprint, with gemma only slightly better at coding.
Similar Articles
Qwen3.6-35B vs Gemma4-26B on 7900 XTX
A detailed benchmark comparing Qwen3.6-35B and Gemma4-26B on Radeon 7900 XTX shows Gemma is ~20% faster end-to-end despite slower token generation, because Qwen generates ~2x more tokens due to internal reasoning. The article recommends using Qwen for throughput-bound batch work and Gemma for latency-sensitive single requests.
Gemma 4 beats Qwen 3.5 (UPDATE), and Qwen 3.6 27B + MiniMax M2.7 is the best OpenCode setup
Personal benchmark shows Gemma-4E4B tops for routing, Qwen-3.6 27/30B beats Gemma-4 for coding, and MiniMax M2.7 MXFP4 replaces giant Qwen-3.5 quants in an OpenCode llama-swap workflow.
Layman's comparison on Qwen3.6 35b-a3b and Gemma4 26b-a4b-it
A user compares Qwen3.6 35B-A3B and Gemma 4 26B-A4B-IT running locally on a 16GB VRAM GPU via LM Studio, finding Qwen3.6 produces more detailed outputs while both run at comparable speeds. The post is an informal community comparison using quantized models.
I tested Qwen3.6-27B, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, Qwen3.5-27B and Gemma 4 on the same real architecture-writing task on an RTX 5090
A hands-on benchmark of four local LLMs—Qwen3.6-27B, Qwen3.6-35B, Qwen3.5-27B and Gemma 4—on a 20k-token architecture-writing task shows Qwen3.6-27B delivering the best overall balance of clarity, completeness and usefulness on an RTX 5090.
Personal Eval follow-up: Gemma4 26B MoE (Q8) vs Qwen3.5 27B Dense vs Gemma4 31B Dense Compared
Personal benchmark shows Qwen3.5-27B Dense and Gemma4-31B Dense fix 100 % of 37 test failures, outperforming Gemma4-26B MoE even at 8-bit quantization, while using fewer tokens and less wall-clock time.