Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.6-27B share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 34 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 34
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 2.5 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.25 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | Margin→ 77.6 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | Margin→ 25.9 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | Margin→ 13.7 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 63.8%B 77.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 13.4SWE-bench Verified: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 18.8%B 24%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 5.2HLE: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 4.8GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 7.1% | 27.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 54.1% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.01% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 8.3% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 665 | 1140 | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 63.8% | 77.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.40% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 33.3% | 53.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.8% | 39.8% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| HLESource | 18.8% | 24% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 84.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | -19.8% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 19.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 14.138% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 74.9% | 74.6% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1197 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.25 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 63.8% and 77.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 63.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 11.6. Gemini 2.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.