Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3 Pro
- 73.4
- #17/48
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 51.5
- #35/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3 Pro leads
Gemini 3 Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.24 versus 52.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 Gemini 3 Pro only
5 Shared
33 Qwen3.6-27B only
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 7
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 33
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3 Pro
- 59.6
- Estimated · #30/151
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 33.9
- Supported · #133/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3 Pro
- 60.9
- Estimated · #21/183
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 42.6
- Supported · #128/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 3 Pro
- 65.3
- Estimated · #25/181
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 49.0
- Estimated · #95/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Gemini 3 Pro
- 85.8
- #38/120
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 82.2
- #50/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3 Pro
- 36.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 73.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3 Pro
- 55.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 72.8
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3 Pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 73.4#17/48 | 51.5#35/48 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Agentic | 59.6Estimated · #30/151 | 33.9Supported · #133/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 60.9Estimated · #21/183 | 42.6Supported · #128/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 65.3Estimated · #25/181 | 49.0Estimated · #95/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 85.8#38/120 | 82.2#50/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 36.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 72.8Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
CharXiv
Multimodal
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.56
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3 ProQwen3.6-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3 Pro
2M
Qwen3.6-27B
262K
API model ID
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3 Pro
Not published
Qwen3.6-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.6-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3 Pro
2025-11-18
Qwen3.6-27B
2026-04-21
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.24 versus 52.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemini 3 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—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3 Pro63.23%Qwen3.6-27B54.84%Gemini 3 Pro leads this result
JobBench
Gemini 3 Pro11.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B1487SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3 Pro14.30%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B53.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B36.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Pro31.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B86.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B93.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B66%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B24%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 3 Pro37.600%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 3 Pro18.750%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B93.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B90.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B94.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro81%SourceQwen3.6-27B75.8%SourceGemini 3 Pro leads this result
MathVision
Gemini 3 Pro86.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3 Pro87.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B84.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3 Pro72.7%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3 Pro81.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B78.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro leads this result
V*
Gemini 3 Pro88.0%SourceQwen3.6-27B94.7%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
MMMU
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MStar
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B81.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B97.8%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B92.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B62.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 3 Pro—Qwen3.6-27B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.24 versus 52.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro scores higher for coding on the public lane, 60.9 to 42.6. Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 59.6 to 33.9. Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3 Pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3 Pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.