Model comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3 Pro and Qwen3.6-27B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Gemini 3 Pro; 37 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 10
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 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 17 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 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.73 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 81.1 against 76.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 81% 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 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 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 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, 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 Pro | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 | Margin→ 56.3 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 | Margin← 4.4 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 81%B 75.8%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 5.2MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3 Pro scored 81%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 81.4%B 78.4%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 3CharXiv: Gemini 3 Pro scored 81.4%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 78.4%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3 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 Pro109 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 63.23% | 54.84% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| JobBenchSource | 11.4% | — | 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 |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 14.30% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | 39.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 91.7% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 37.0% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.8% | 84.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.2% | 21.6% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.8% | -19.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.9% | 19.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.9% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.8% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 37.600% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 18.750% | — | 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 |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3 Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81% | 75.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| MathVisionSource | 86.6% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 87.6% | 84.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81.4% | 78.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| V*Source | 88.0% | 94.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 80.2% | 74.6% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | 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 |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 70.4% | 67.6% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.73 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 81% and 75.8%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 32.9. Gemini 3 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 76.7. Inside this category, V* 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.