Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 7 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in images and charts.
Scores updated · 47 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software80Gemini 3.1 Pro8 of 9 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math40Gemini 3.1 Pro4 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Gemini 3.1 Pro4 of 4 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video31Gemini 3.1 Pro3 of 4 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked20Gemini 3.1 Pro2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own21Gemini 3.1 Pro2 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Gemini 3.1 Pro1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 70% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Gemini 3.1 Pro pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+35.3points ahead
- Follows detailed instructions exactlyLiveBench · Instruction Following+25.9points ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+24.6points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+9.7points ahead
- Reads and reasons about text in imagesOCRBenchv2+5.5points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+1.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 47 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGemini 3.1 Pro
- Terminal-Bench HardGemini 3.1 Pro by 1953.834.8+19
- SciCodeGemini 3.1 Pro by 15.958.742.8+15.9
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Gemini 3.1 Pro by 13.173.860.7+13.1
- LiveCodeBench v6Gemini 3.1 Pro by 7.891.783.9+7.8
- SWE-bench MultilingualGemini 3.1 Pro by 5.676.971.3+5.6
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGemini 3.1 Pro by 4.844.139.3+4.8
- LiveBench · CodingGemini 3.1 Pro by 4.776.571.8+4.7
- SWE-bench VerifiedGemini 3.1 Pro by 3.480.677.2+3.4
- SWE-bench Protie54.253.5tie
AgentsGemini 3.1 Pro
- GDPValQwen3.6 27B by 9.714.724.4+9.7
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGemini 3.1 Pro by 4.721.416.7+4.7
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Gemini 3.1 Pro by 440+4
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro
- Humanity's Last ExamGemini 3.1 Pro by 23.94723.1+23.9
- CritPtGemini 3.1 Pro by 16.617.71.1+16.6
- LiveBench · ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro by 13.78470.3+13.7
- GPQA DiamondGemini 3.1 Pro by 9.994.184.2+9.9
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGemini 3.1 Pro by 35.354.919.6+35.3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 27B by 1.649.150.7+1.6
Images and chartsGemini 3.1 Pro
- MMMU-ProGemini 3.1 Pro by 7.882.474.6+7.8
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.6 27B by 5.562.868.3+5.5
- CharXiv (RQ)Gemini 3.1 Pro by 4.983.378.4+4.9
- MathVistaGemini 3.1 Pro by 2.890.287.4+2.8
MathGemini 3.1 Pro
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Gemini 3.1 Pro by 24.659.635.1+24.6
- LiveBench · MathematicsGemini 3.1 Pro by 11.19179.9+11.1
- HMMT Feb. 2026Gemini 3.1 Pro by 10.494.784.3+10.4
- AIME 2026Gemini 3.1 Pro by 4.298.394.1+4.2
- IMOAnswerBenchtie8180.8tie
Following instructionsGemini 3.1 Pro
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingGemini 3.1 Pro by 25.979.153.2+25.9
- IFBenchGemini 3.1 Pro by 9.577.167.6+9.5
Other results17 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceGemini 3.1 Pro by 51.931.9-20+51.9
- livebench_languageGemini 3.1 Pro by 22.185.463.3+22.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGemini 3.1 Pro by 15.168.853.7+15.1
- SimpleVQAGemini 3.1 Pro by 13.869.956.1+13.8
- DynaMathQwen3.6 27B by 13.572.185.6+13.5
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.6 27B by 9.810.320.1+9.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Gemini 3.1 Pro by 9.268.559.3+9.2
- AA IntelligenceGemini 3.1 Pro by 8.329.721.4+8.3
- ERQAGemini 3.1 Pro by 8.370.862.5+8.3
- livebench_data_analysisGemini 3.1 Pro by 8.178.570.4+8.1
- MMLU-ProGemini 3.1 Pro by 4.89186.2+4.8
- HMMT Nov. 2025Gemini 3.1 Pro by 4.194.890.7+4.1
- NL2RepoQwen3.6 27B by 2.833.436.2+2.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Gemini 3.1 Pro by 1.495.694.2+1.4
- DeepSWE 1.1Qwen3.6 27B by 1.31213.3+1.3
- RealWorldQAGemini 3.1 Pro by 1.385.484.1+1.3
- EmbSpatial-Benchtie84.284.6tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6 27B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro wins seven of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts, math, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3.6 27B wins none, but costs 70% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Gemini 3.1 Pro. It wins 8 of the 9 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 27B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 3.1 Pro costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 70% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 47 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 30 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 17 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.