Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 50.3 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.