Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 19.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 86.7% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 262K |
| Max output | 2K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 48% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 29.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 143.93 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 84.8% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | — |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.2 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.