Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT 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 25.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 46.0 |
| Released | — | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1482 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1460 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1456 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1504 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1438 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1415 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1439 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen3.8 27B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.