Model comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.6 Flash unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.6-27B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemini 3.6 Flash; 40 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 5
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 40
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.6 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Qwen3.6-27B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.6-27B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 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. Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0 | Margin← 23.7 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Gemini 3.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1421 | 1140 | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 38.7% | 27.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 46.1% | 32.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 961 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 24.5% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| deepSweSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 69.2% | 53.7% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 52.7% | 39.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 50.1% | 37.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.8% | 84.2% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 38.3% | 21.6% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 23.5% | -19.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.2% | 19.2% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | 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 |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 83.2% | 74.6% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| 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 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.6-27B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 59.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.
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.