Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5 27B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 38.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 54% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 39.5% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.041.9
Released2025-03-252026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.40
Results tracked7828

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev12271358
WeirdML54%39.5%
LMArena Coding14521427
ALE-Bench785.52349.45
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
SciCode42.8%—
GSO3.9%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2573.64201.98
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts14551414
DTBench82.4%82.4%
LMCA34.8%34%
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
ARC-AGI-141%—
CritPt2%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14501429
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%—
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%12.1%
LMArena Expert14521428
GPQA Diamond85.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision12631241
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14511390
LMArena Chinese15071478
LMArena French14721410
LMArena German14871393
LMArena Japanese14611345
LMArena Korean14341358
LMArena Russian14611390
LMArena Spanish14731407

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14371393
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14491413
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14581409
LMArena Creative Writing14541362
LMArena Multi-Turn14531410
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.5 27B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper