Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 1 of 8 areas
Following instructions
Wins 7 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math · Long documents
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger all-rounder.Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 44 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 software07Qwen3.6 27B7 of 7 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video04Qwen3.6 27B4 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03Qwen3.6 27B3 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03Qwen3.6 27B3 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Qwen3.6 27B2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up01Qwen3.6 27B1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Gemma 4 26B A4B1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
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.
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 87% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+59.8points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in many programming languagesSWE-bench Multilingual+54points ahead
- Long, multi-file coding tasks in real codebasesSWE-bench Pro+39.7points ahead
Where Gemma 4 26B A4B pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+4.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 44 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 27B
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 27B by 59.817.477.2+59.8
- SWE-bench MultilingualQwen3.6 27B by 5417.371.3+54
- SWE-bench ProQwen3.6 27B by 39.713.853.5+39.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Qwen3.6 27B by 21.73960.7+21.7
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 27B by 21.213.634.8+21.2
- LiveCodeBench v6Qwen3.6 27B by 6.877.183.9+6.8
- SciCodeQwen3.6 27B by 2.84042.8+2.8
AgentsQwen3.6 27B
- GDPValQwen3.6 27B by 213.424.4+21
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.6 27B by 4.71216.7+4.7
ReasoningQwen3.6 27B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 27B by 579.284.2+5
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 27B by 3.819.323.1+3.8
- CritPtQwen3.6 27B by 1.101.1+1.1
FactsQwen3.6 27B
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 27B by 37.113.650.7+37.1
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracytie19.119.6tie
Images and chartsQwen3.6 27B
- CharXiv (RQ)Qwen3.6 27B by 9.46978.4+9.4
- MathVistaQwen3.6 27B by 879.487.4+8
- MMMU-ProQwen3.6 27B by 5.469.274.6+5.4
- MMMUQwen3.6 27B by 4.578.482.9+4.5
MathQwen3.6 27B
- IMOAnswerBenchQwen3.6 27B by 6.574.380.8+6.5
- AIME 2026Qwen3.6 27B by 5.888.394.1+5.8
- HMMT Feb. 2026Qwen3.6 27B by 5.37984.3+5.3
Following instructionsGemma 4 26B A4B
- IFBenchGemma 4 26B A4B by 4.872.467.6+4.8
Other results21 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.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 27B by 50.643.694.2+50.6
- SkillsBench Avg5Qwen3.6 27B by 35.912.348.2+35.9
- Claw Eval (pass@3)Qwen3.6 27B by 32.62860.6+32.6
- QwenWebBenchQwen3.6 27B by 309 rating points11781487+309 rating
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.6 27B by 30.8-50.8-20+30.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Qwen3.6 27B by 25.134.259.3+25.1
- NL2RepoQwen3.6 27B by 24.611.636.2+24.6
- QwenClawBenchQwen3.6 27B by 14.738.753.4+14.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 27B by 14.439.353.7+14.4
- Claw-Eval AvgQwen3.6 27B by 13.658.872.4+13.6
- RealWorldQAQwen3.6 27B by 11.972.284.1+11.9
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.6 27B by 9.11120.1+9.1
- C-EvalQwen3.6 27B by 8.982.591.4+8.9
- CC-OCRQwen3.6 27B by 6.774.581.2+6.7
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 27B by 4.716.721.4+4.7
- SuperGPQAQwen3.6 27B by 4.661.466+4.6
- SimpleVQAQwen3.6 27B by 3.952.256.1+3.9
- MMLU-ProQwen3.6 27B by 3.682.686.2+3.6
- HMMT Nov. 2025Qwen3.6 27B by 3.287.590.7+3.2
- HMMT Feb. 2025Qwen3.6 27B by 2.191.793.8+2.1
- MMLU-Reduxtie92.793.5tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B wins seven of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, math and long documents. Gemma 4 26B A4B wins following instructions, and costs 87% less.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Gemma 4 26B A4B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.13 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Gemma 4 26B A4B about 87% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 44 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 21 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.