Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen Turbo

Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 2 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen Turbo in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen Turbo leads 15.3 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 27.9% for Gemma 2 27B and 56.2% for Qwen Turbo.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.427.1
Released2024-06-242024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window8K1M
Max output2K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.20
Results tracked343

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1198—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen Turbo leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%6.1%
MATH Level 527.9%56.2%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—

Knowledge Qwen Turbo leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond36.5%41.8%
Confabulations27.1%—
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1217—
LMArena Chinese1221—
LMArena French1247—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen Turbo
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen Turbo?

Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 2 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen Turbo share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper