Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 44.3 to 29.1.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1487 |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 149.38 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1459 |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1453 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1504 |
| LMArena French | — | 1468 |
| LMArena German | — | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1444 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1436 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1448 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1382 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1443 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.8 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.