Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen1.5-72B
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 30.7 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 52.5% for Gemma 2 27B and 40.3% for Qwen1.5-72B.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 30.3 |
| 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 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1166 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 40.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1148 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1164 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1136 |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1158 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1049 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1110 |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1142 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1160 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.5 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen1.5-72B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.