ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 27B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 69 to 65 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.6 27B is 2.5× cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 27B

    Released Apr 22, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.5
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 27B
  2. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Released May 19, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI154.5
    • Price$1.50 / $9.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.5 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.6 27B (65). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 · Qwen3.6 27B 146.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 27BQwen3.6 27B $1.35 · Gemini 3.5 Flash $3.38 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3.6 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.5 FlashQwen3.6 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Gemini 3.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3.6 27BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 27BGemini 3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7484
Price25%4425
Inputs & features15%90100
Context window10%3761
Overall100%65/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.6 27B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 27BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.5154.5 (best)
ECI rank#68 of 148#33 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions85.9%92.8% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics35.1%62.8% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics91.1%95.6% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—79.3%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—66.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$1.50
Output$3.60 (best)$9.00
Cached input—$0.15
Blended (3:1)$1.35 (best)$3.38
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioYesYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYesminimal · low · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDqwen3.6-27bgemini-3.5-flash
API providers2732 (best)
ReleasedApr 22, 2026May 19, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.6 27B$13.20
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash$33.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.6 27B or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Qwen3.6 27B (65). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 27B or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $1.50 input / $9.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.35 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 27B versus $3.38 for Gemini 3.5 Flash (2.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 (#33 of 148) and Qwen3.6 27B 146.5 (#68 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (152.5–156.6 vs 144.2–147.9), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.5 Flash 92.8%, Qwen3.6 27B 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 62.8%, Qwen3.6 27B 35.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 95.6%, Qwen3.6 27B 91.1%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.6 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.6 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.6 27B up to 65,536, Gemini 3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.6 27B accepts text, images, audio and video; Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.6 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the newest, released May 19, 2026. Qwen3.6 27B came out Apr 22, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash Jan 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons