# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

> Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.4 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen3-6-max-preview
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## 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 54.1 to 10.7.
- 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.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 312 | 43 |
| Context | 8K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $1.30 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $7.80 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 48% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 149.24 |
| 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

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)

| 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

- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1478 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1438 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1457 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)

| 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% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.4 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: 48.7 versus 34.1 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.