Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.0 Pro Google

27.3

Rank #332 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.8 to 9.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 45.9% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 82.4% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.341.9
Released2023-12-132026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked2428

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding11081427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45
HumanEval+55.5%—
MBPP+61.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts11091414
DTBench45.9%82.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LMCA—34%
Epoch Capabilities Index117.04—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math11321429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%—
MATH Level 511.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert10591428
GPQA Diamond34%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
MMLU70%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English11381390
LMArena Chinese11241478
LMArena French11451410
LMArena German11251393
LMArena Japanese10231345
LMArena Russian11861390
LMArena Spanish11191407
LMArena Korean—1358

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11141393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query11321413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text11491409
LMArena Creative Writing11311362
LMArena Multi-Turn11391410

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper