Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 37.4 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 70.3% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B accepts more context: 41K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 41K |
| Max output | 2K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1416 |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 29.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1398 |
| DTBench | 48% | 69.3% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 139.63 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 70.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1396 |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1433 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1370 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1363 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1379 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1317 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1378 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3-30B-A3B does, with 41K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.