Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.0 Pro Google

27.3

Rank #332 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 36.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 45.9% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.346.0
Released2023-12-132026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked2431

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding11081482
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%
HumanEval+55.5%—
MBPP+61.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts11091460
DTBench45.9%88%
Epoch Capabilities Index117.04149.38
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math11321456
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%—
ProofBench—16%
MATH Level 511.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert10591482
GPQA Diamond34%—
MMLU70%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English11381430
LMArena Chinese11241504
LMArena French11451465
LMArena German11251438
LMArena Japanese10231384
LMArena Russian11861415
LMArena Spanish11191448
LMArena Korean—1393

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11141439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query11321450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text11491441
LMArena Creative Writing11311384
LMArena Multi-Turn11391441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3.8 27B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper