Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.2

Rank #302 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 47.5 to 10.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.241.9
Released2024-06-242026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K262K
Max output2K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$3.60
Results tracked3411

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
DTBench48%78.1%
LMCA7.1%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index122.06146.47
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1199—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%91.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond36.5%85.9%
Confabulations27.1%—
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1217—
LMArena Chinese1221—
LMArena French1246—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 27B?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 27B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper