Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Gemma 2 27B costs 3.0x less per output token than Qwen3.6 Plus ($0.65 vs $1.95 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 34 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Plus: which to pick
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 3.0x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.95 per million).
- Shared results
- 34
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 2
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 49
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a AA Intelligence Index result, 27.0.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a GPQA Diamond result, 87.4%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a AIME result, 94.6%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a MMLU Pro result, 87.7%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a Design Arena: websites result, 1243.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus takes 1M tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 2 27B
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Qwen3.6 Plus $0.0013 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has the number, $1.19.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 Plus 44.1 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 56.4 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3.6 Plus 93.3%, 91.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3.6 Plus $1.95 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 5 | ||
| General | 0 | 19 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 34 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1461 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 54.5 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 86.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 73.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 25.6% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 11.1% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 43.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 670.1 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | 1467 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | 1462 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1454 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1463 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1472 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 27.0 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | 147.3 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 40.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 7.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 14.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 32.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 97.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $5,115 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 87.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 88.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.8% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 88.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 14.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 12.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | 1448 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | 1454 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | 1455 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 94.6% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 93.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 38.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | 1449 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | 1448 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 87.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 51.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 74.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 36.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 44.1% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | 1439 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | 1442 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | 1437 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | 1430 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1243 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1233 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1211 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1228 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1202 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1236 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1161 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1113 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 44.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 77.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 51.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 75.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 78.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | 81.9% | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 33.1% | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| CL-bench | Not measured | 20.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1436 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | 1424 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | 1404 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | 1445 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | 1424 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | 1477 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | 1451 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | 1390 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | 1379 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | 1455 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | 1432 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | 1434 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | 1433 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | 1438 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | 1439 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | 1418 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | 1402 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | 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
Gemma 2 27B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | April 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 8K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $1.95 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 44.1 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.19 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.6 Plus for coding?
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 3.0x cheaper ($0.65 vs $1.95 per million).
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.325 and $1.95. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 Plus only.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.6 Plus comparison based on?
34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 Plus's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.