Model comparison

Gemma 1.1 7b IT vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 1.1 7b IT Google

31.3

Rank #277 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 7b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 30.4.

Side by side

Gemma 1.1 7b IT and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Gemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.341.9
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked1928

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 31.5 (#284), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding10841427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45
HumanEval+35.4%—
MBPP+45%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 20.5 (#238), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts10711414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 32.0 (#220), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math11071429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 28.3 (#247), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert10391428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 28.1 (#273), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English10521390
LMArena Chinese10611478
LMArena French10651410
LMArena German10541393
LMArena Japanese9711345
LMArena Korean9881358
LMArena Russian10461390
LMArena Spanish10491407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 54.0 (#283), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following10571393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 32.1 (#272), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query10561413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 30.4 (#288), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text10941409
LMArena Creative Writing10601362
LMArena Multi-Turn10401410

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 31.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 7b IT and Qwen3.5 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 7b IT has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper