Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.5 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 29.3.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 41.9 |
| 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 | 17 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 31.8 (#268), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 20.5 (#219), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 30.1 (#212), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1135 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.3 (#229), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.5 (#252), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena French | 1156 | — |
| LMArena German | 1114 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 58.1 (#258), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.2 (#245), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.6 (#258), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 31.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.