Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3-1.7B
Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3-1.7B leads 16.3 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-1.7B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3-1.7B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 8.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 38% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | — |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3-1.7B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.