Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B costs 4.3x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.15 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-9B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 2 27B for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 31
- Qwen3.5-9B only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Qwen3.5-9B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 13.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B takes 262K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Qwen3.5-9B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 60.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3.5-9B 61.7%, 60.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 per million output tokens, 4.3x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3.5-9B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | Qwen3.5-9B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| Math | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 5 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 23.5 | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 29.5% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 24.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 9.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 13.3 | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | 139.3 | Qwen3.5-9B |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 86.8% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 80.6% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 14.9% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 79.0% | Qwen3.5-9B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 61.7% | Qwen3.5-9B |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 66.7% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 70.0% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | 71.2% | Qwen3.5-9B |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 24.5% | Qwen3.5-9B |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | March 10, 2026 |
| Context window | 8K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.5-9B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-9B?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B, with 262K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-9B comparison based on?
5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-9B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.