Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 26.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1047 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 970 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | — |
| LMArena German | 944 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.