Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B Google

29.9

Rank #301 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 16.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.6% for Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.942.2
Released2024-10-032026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked2111

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 35.5 (#225), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
LMArena Coding1218—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 20.0 (#244), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
DTBench50%78.1%
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1209—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LMCA—34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.5

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 14.2 (#302), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.6%91.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
LMArena Math1207—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 16.0 (#289), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond33%85.9%
LMArena Expert1185—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 28.2 (#115), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision1044—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 38.5 (#229), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1215—
LMArena Chinese1231—
LMArena French1234—
LMArena German1206—
LMArena Japanese1150—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1236—
LMArena Spanish1212—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 62.8 (#236), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1199—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 37.0 (#225), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1219—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 42.8 (#232), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1226—
LMArena Creative Writing1218—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1185—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 35.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B and Qwen3.6 27B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper