Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen1.5-32B
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 33.0 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 52.5% for Gemma 2 27B and 42% for Qwen1.5-32B.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 32.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 42% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1130 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1155 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1126 |
| MMLU | 75.7% | 74.4% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1089 |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1116 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1140 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen1.5-32B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.