Model comparison
Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3 Flash #49 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen3.6-27B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemini 3 Flash; 40 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 3 Flash only
- 5
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 40
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 Flash 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 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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 Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.49 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $3.00 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 Flash 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 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 Flash | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3 Flash27.8 | Margin→ 61.4 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3 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 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3 Flash$0.5 input / $3 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3 Flash159 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3 Flash1.19 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3 Flash1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Gemini 3 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 49.2% | 72.4% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.3% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.63% | 54.84% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| JobBenchSource | 11.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 20.20% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.9% | 39.8% | Gemini 3 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 27.4% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.2% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 14.1% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.6% | -19.8% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.5% | 19.2% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.2% | 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 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 35.640% | — | 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 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.6% | 74.6% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1226 | — | 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 3 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.1% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.49 to 53.82.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 27.8. Gemini 3 Flash 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.