Model comparison
Gemma 3n E4b IT vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 34.2.
Side by side
| Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 37.0 (#198), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1268 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 19.9 (#247), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 31.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 35.1 (#188), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 34.2 (#198), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1246 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 43.4 (#183), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1309 | — |
| LMArena French | 1330 | — |
| LMArena German | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1259 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1288 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1305 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.1 (#210), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1255 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.7 (#191), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1276 | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.1 (#186), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1287 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1276 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3n E4b IT and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.