Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 36.1 to 10.7.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1298 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.