Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 4.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 52.2 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 Max Preview.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | 262K |
| Max output | 2K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 48% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 149.27 |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1465 |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1476 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1437 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1456 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 4.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.