Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 36.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 85.9% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.6 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.