Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified July 21, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google

55.3/100

Margin

1.5pts

← winning

Qwen3.6-27B

Alibaba

53.82/100

1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.6-27B share 22 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 32 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 21, 2026

Shared results: 22
Gemini 3.1 Pro only: 25
Qwen3.6-27B only: 32
Comparable categories: 2 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.1 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 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.3 versus 53.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Gemini 3.1 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 82.6 against 76.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 83.9% to 75.8%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 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 3.1 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 3.1 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 scores and score margins for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.6-27B
Category	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Δ	Qwen3.6-27B
Math	Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8	Margin→ 57.4	Qwen3.6-27B89.2
Multimodal	Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6	Margin← 5.9	Qwen3.6-27B76.7
Agentic	Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.6-27B59.3
Coding	Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.6-27B77.5
Reasoning	Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.6-27BNot measured
Knowledge	Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.6-27B53.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

A · Gemini 3.1 ProB · Qwen3.6-27B

MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Source ↗
A 83.9%B 75.8%
Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 8.1
MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.
CharXiv
Multimodal
Source ↗
A 80.2%B 78.4%
Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 1.8
CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 78.4%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output	Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output	Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s	Qwen3.6-27BNot available	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s	Qwen3.6-27BNot available	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	Gemini 3.1 Pro1M	Qwen3.6-27B262K	Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

20 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
Claw-EvalSource	57.8%	72.4%	Qwen3.6-27B leads
DeepSearchQASource	69.7%	—	Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource	95.6%	94.2%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA Agentic IndexSource	21.4%	27.0%	Qwen3.6-27B leads
APEX-Agents-AASource	32.0%	—	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	23.3%	32.0%	Qwen3.6-27B leads
GDPval-AASource	965	1140	Qwen3.6-27B leads
Gert LabsSource	56.87%	54.84%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ResearchClawBenchSource	13.3%	—	Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource	37.5%	—	Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource	42.2%	—	Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource	58.9%	—	Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource	30.3%	—	Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource	16.5%	—	Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource	53.8%	—	Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source	73.8%	—	Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	—	59.3%	Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource	—	53.4%	Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource	—	1487	Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource	—	70.3%	Not comparable

Coding

11 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
LiveCodeBench ProSource	82.9%	—	Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource	78.9%	—	Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource	32.03%	—	Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource	68.8%	53.7%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource	58.9%	39.8%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	—	77.2%	Not comparable
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

Reasoning

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
ARC-AGI-2Source	77.1%	—	Not comparable
AA-LCRSource	72.7%	68.7%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource	17.7%	1.1%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads

Knowledge

16 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
GPQA-DSource	94.3%	—	Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource	45.4%	—	Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource	20.6%	—	Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source	71.5%	—	Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	46.5%	37.0%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	94.1%	84.2%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource	44.7%	21.6%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	32.9%	-19.8%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	55.3%	19.2%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	49.9%	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
GPQASource	—	87.8%	Not comparable
HLESource	—	24%	Not comparable

MathQwen3.6-27B wins

7 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	36.900%	—	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	16.700%	—	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

Multilingual

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource	93.2%	—	Not comparable

MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins

20 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
MMMU-ProSource	83.9%	75.8%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CharXivSource	80.2%	78.4%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ERQASource	69.4%	62.5%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
SimpleVQASource	72.4%	56.1%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ScreenSpot ProSource	84.4%	—	Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource	29.0%	—	Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source	81.3%	—	Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource	82.4%	74.6%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1281	—	Not comparable
MMMUSource	—	82.9%	Not comparable
RealWorldQASource	—	84.1%	Not comparable
DynaMathSource	—	85.6%	Not comparable
MStarSource	—	81.4%	Not comparable
CC-OCRSource	—	81.2%	Not comparable
CountBenchSource	—	97.8%	Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source	—	92.5%	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. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.6-27B	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	77.1%	67.6%	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.3 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 75.8%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 76.7. Inside this category, SimpleVQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

API / mo$10,500

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Qwen3.6-27B

API / mo$0

Self-host / mo$429

Break-even—

Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.