Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20

Gemma 2 27B costs 2.8x less per output token than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 ($0.65 vs $1.80 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Qwen
Coding
39.5
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20: which to pick

Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 has a coding score, 39.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.80 per million).

Shared results
6
Gemma 2 27B only
30
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 only
19
Like-for-like categories
5 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 Plus 2026-04-20 39.5 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 85.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 86.7%, 85.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 $1.80 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 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 Plus 2026-04-20Ties
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Math01
Knowledge01
General02
All shared boards06
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured85.3%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured71.2%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured15.7%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured608.9Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text: coding1211Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1228Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1146.2Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$1Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured87.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured22.8%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%84.8%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
Chess puzzlesNot measured8.0%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1198Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: expert1171Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1206Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
AIMENot measured86.0%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%86.7%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
MATH level 527.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: math1212Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1221Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
MMLU ProNot measured87.2%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%85.1%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured59.7%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured65.3%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured60.8%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured95.2%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured25.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
MMLU75.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: science1228Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1198Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1241Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1208Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 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 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured30.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
DTBench48.0%80.5%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
LMCA7.1%36.4%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
CL-benchNot measured19.8%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
CL-bench LifeNot measured12.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text1231Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1206Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1240Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: English1242Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: non-English1217Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1221Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: German1209Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1175Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Korean1174Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: French1248Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1228Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Russian1234Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Polish1277Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1224Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1230Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1249Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1212Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 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 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
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 Plus 2026-04-20$0.0012Fits in one request

Gemma 2 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20$0.020Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20$0.078Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 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 Plus 2026-04-20
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window8K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.65$1.80
Coding indexNot benchmarked39.5
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 for coding?

Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 has a coding score, 39.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.80 per million).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs $0.30 and $1.80. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 comparison based on?

6 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 Plus 2026-04-20's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next