Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Qwen3.6-27B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 38 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 7
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.82 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-27B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 89.2 against 77.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 77.5% to 94.1%. Gemma 4 12B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.
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 | Gemma 4 12B | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 24.2 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin→ 11.7 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 12B69.1 | Margin→ 7.6 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 12B43.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 77.5%B 94.1%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 16.6AIME26: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 94.1%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 78.8%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 9GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 77.2%B 86.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 9MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.2%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 69.1%B 75.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 6.7MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 69.1%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 36.3% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| 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 |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.2% | 39.8% | Qwen3.6-27B 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 |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | 86.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 5.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.0% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.3% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 14.8% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -51.9% | -19.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 16.0% | 19.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.8% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 69.1% | 75.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MathVisionSource | 79.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 48.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.7% | 74.6% | Qwen3.6-27B 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 |
| 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 | Gemma 4 12B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | 67.6% | Gemma 4 12B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 77.5% and 94.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 77.5. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 69.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.