Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash costs 2.5x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.26 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 34 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 2 27B Replace Qwen3.5-Flash
Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
41.1
Overall
50.1
Output $/M
$0.26
34
vs boards won of 34 shared

Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model AGemma 2 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.5-FlashQwen41.1/1002 independent benchmarks$0.40 per solved task
Shared results
34
Gemma 2 27B only
2
Qwen3.5-Flash only
21
Like-for-like categories
6 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 49.2 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3.5-Flash 84.4%, 83.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3.5-Flash 1M.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 2 27BBarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge05
General019
All shared boards034
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured64.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
ALE-BenchNot measured265.9Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding12111412Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT12281416Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1229Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1291Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1143.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured82.8%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%82.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
Chess puzzlesNot measured14.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11981403Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: expert11711407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12061409Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIMENot measured92.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%84.4%Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured18.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MATH level 527.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: math12121407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work12211413Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.1%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%84.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured56.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured63.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MMLU75.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: science12281415Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11981407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government12411398Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance12081394Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured42.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured70.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
DTBench48.0%82.9%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMCA7.1%29.1%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12311397Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following12061374Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing12401343Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: English12421404Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: non-English12171385Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese12211445Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: German12091390Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese11751369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Korean11741344Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: French12481413Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish12281400Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Russian12341380Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Polish12771376Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn12241393Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries12301392Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language12491369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12121347Qwen3.5-Flash
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
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
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

Gemma 2 27B$0.0010Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash 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.

Specifications of Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BQwen3.5-Flash
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024February 25, 2026
Context window8K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.065
Output $/Mtok$0.65$0.26
Coding indexNot benchmarked41.1
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5-Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?

34 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-Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next