Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Qwen3.5-27B vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 20 results on 5 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3.5-27B Released 24 Feb 2026 · $0.27 in · $2.16 out
GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro Preview Released 19 Feb 2026 · $2.00 in · $12.00 out
Qwen3.5-27B wins 2Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 18

Of the 20 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.

Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview? The short answer

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.7 against 22.9). Pick Qwen3.5-27B if cost matters more: it costs 6.1 times less per token.

  • Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper: $0.74 against $4.50 per million tokens, 6.1 times less.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 29.7 against 22.9.
  • Qwen3.5-27B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 19 Feb 2026 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.

Head to head

22.9
Intelligence Index
29.7
$0.74
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.50
262,144
Context window, tokens
1,048,576

Every fact side by side

Qwen3.5-27BGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Price per million tokens$0.27 in · $2.16 out$2.00 in · $12.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.74$4.50
Cheapest host, blended$0.54 (Alibaba)$4.50 (Google)
Cached input, per million–$0.20 cached input
Intelligence Index22.929.7
Spring Prompt overall–49
Output speed, tokens a second–120
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Released24 Feb 2026 (newer)19 Feb 2026
WeightsOpenClosed
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live not measured 9 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is not measured 15 of 20
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled not measured 6 of 9
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending not measured 9 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 145 of 164 61 of 164
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects not measured 36 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 82 of 198 24 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 98 of 188 9 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 121 of 152 34 of 152
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) not measured 5 of 24

From our research

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3.5-27BGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 129 · 15 of 387 measured 1,409 1,487
Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 112 · 21 of 163 measured 1,420 1,472
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 128 · 23 of 380 measured 1,408 1,477
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 86 · 52 of 243 measured 22.9 29.7
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 74 · 5 of 231 measured 85.8% 94.1%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 95 · 16 of 242 measured 23.9% 47.0%
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 99 · 5 of 230 measured 42.4think-prefill reasoning 72.2low reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 49 · 99 of 230 measured 11.0%think-prefill reasoning 19.0%low reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 147 · 122 of 230 measured 0.33no reasoning 0.34low reasoning
Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results
Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 80 · 61 of 104 measured 12.1% 10.4%
Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 55 of 104 measured 99.8% 99.4%
Vending-Bench 2 reported by Vending-Bench 2 · 1 result
Money after a yearUS dollars, higher is better 50 · 45 of 58 measured $201.98 $911.21
Show all 20 results (8 more)
MeasureQwen3.5-27BGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 145 · 10 of 385 measured 1,358 1,480
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 112 · 26 of 338 measured 1,441 1,509
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 17 of 387 measured 1,401 1,480
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 11 of 386 measured 1,380 1,480
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 24 · 13 of 195 measured 75.6% 77.1%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 63 · 24 of 233 measured 77.7% 82.0%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 61 · 8 of 190 measured 32.6% 53.8%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 16 of 193 measured 93.9% 95.6%

Quick answers

Is Qwen3.5-27B better than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.7 against 22.9). Pick Qwen3.5-27B if cost matters more: it costs 6.1 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper: $0.74 against $4.50 per million tokens, 6.1 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 61 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 145 for Qwen3.5-27B.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 24 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 82 for Qwen3.5-27B.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 9 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 98 for Qwen3.5-27B.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 34 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 121 for Qwen3.5-27B.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5-27B.

Run Qwen3.5-27B and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.