Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.2

Rank #302 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.0

Rank #222 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.0 to 10.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 66.4% for Qwen3 14B.
  • Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Qwen3 14B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.235.0
Released2024-06-242025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K131K
Max output2K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$1.40
Results tracked3412

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
SciCode—31.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
DTBench48%64%
LMCA7.1%18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index122.06138.23
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1199—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%66.4%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond36.5%63.8%
Confabulations27.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1217—
LMArena Chinese1221—
LMArena French1246—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Too close to call

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.7 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 14B does, with 131K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 14B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper