Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Gemma 2 27B costs 1.5x less per output token than Qwen3.6 35B A3B ($0.65 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
Qwen3.6 35B A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
45.0
Output $/M
$1.00
5
vs boards won of 5 shared

Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.00 per million) and work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.

Shared results
5
Gemma 2 27B only
31
Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
15
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B 86.7%, 85.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 2 27BBarsQwen3.6 35B A3BTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Math01
General02
All shared boards05
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured41.9Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
SciCodeNot measured36.6%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.6%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
WeirdMLNot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured18.2Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1143.7Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured13.1Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured95.3%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.1%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured22.2%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%84.8%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured22.0%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%86.7%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured20.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
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 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B 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 12 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
IFBenchNot measured64.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
DTBench48.0%73.9%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
LMCA7.1%29.7%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured44.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 24 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0080Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.030Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BQwen3.6 35B A3B
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window8K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.65$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.00 per million) and work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 262K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next