Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 4 12B vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.29/100
Margin
12.4pts
winning →
59.72/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 11 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 10 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
Gemma 4 12B only
12
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
10
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 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

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.72 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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 scores and score margins for Gemma 4 12B and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
CategoryGemma 4 12BΔQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
MathGemma 4 12B77.5Margin 59.1Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B77.5Margin 3.6Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9
AgenticGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4
CodingGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0
ReasoningGemma 4 12B43.4MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured
MultimodalGemma 4 12B69.1MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 12BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 12BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 12BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 12B256KQwen 3.6 Max (preview)256KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 36.3%95.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 59.0%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1532Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AA-SciCodeSource 38.2%46.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 57.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 47%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 42.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
BBHSource 53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 55.3%69.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
CritPtSource 0.0%3.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
GPQASource 78.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 22.0%40.0%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.3%88.8%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-HLESource 14.8%28.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -51.9%10.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 16.0%37.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.8%44.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
SuperGPQASource 73.9%Not comparable
MathGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AIME26Source 77.5%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 23.103%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%76.6%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.72 to 47.29.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 73.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 18.4. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.