Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-9B

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 19.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.433.8
Released2024-06-242026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K262K
Max output2K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.15
Results tracked3410

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
SciCode—27.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench—9.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
DTBench48%71.2%
LMCA7.1%24.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08139.46
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—12%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1198—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen3.5-9B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%61.7%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—48.5%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond36.5%79%
Confabulations27.1%—
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Non-English1217—
LMArena Chinese1221—
LMArena French1247—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-9B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper