Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.6 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.6 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.

Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6-27B is a dense 27-billion-parameter multimodal language model developed by Alibaba's Qwen team and released on April 22, 2026. It combines a causal language model with an integrated vision encoder, supporting text, image, and video inputs natively. The architecture employs a hybrid attention design that interleaves Gated DeltaNet linear attention blocks with standard Gated Attention layers across 64 transformer layers with a hidden dimension of 5,120. Unlike Mixture-of-Experts variants in the Qwen3.6 family, all 27 billion parameters are active on every inference pass, simplifying deployment and quantization. The model supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible to approximately 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN scaling. It is released under the Apache 2.0 license with open weights available on Hugging Face and ModelScope.

The model introduces two notable capabilities relative to prior Qwen releases: enhanced agentic coding support covering frontend workflows and repository-level reasoning, and a Thinking Preservation mechanism that retains chain-of-thought reasoning context across multi-turn conversation history to reduce redundant token generation in iterative agent sessions. It supports both a thinking mode for multi-step reasoning and a non-thinking mode for faster responses within a single model. On coding benchmarks, Qwen reports scores of 77.2 on SWE-bench Verified, 59.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 48.2 on SkillsBench. Vision capabilities include chart understanding (CharXiv RQ: 78.4), OCR (CC-OCR: 81.2), and video understanding (VideoMME with subtitles: 87.7).

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.6 27B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.289
Output $/1M$10.00$3.17
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Object DetectionDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
70.15%
Avg Response Time11.87s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens565
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0060
Defect Detection
73.3%(11/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
20%(2/10)
Object Understanding
78.6%(11/14)
Spatial Understanding
78.9%(15/19)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology