Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 51.8 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 93.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | 1M |
| Max output | 2K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1467 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1461 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 670.15 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1449 |
| DTBench | 48% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 147.65 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 88.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1454 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1425 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1438 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.