Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 19.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 86.7% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.439.9
Released2024-06-242026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window8K1M
Max output2K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.13
Results tracked347

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08144.64
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1198—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%86.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond36.5%82.3%
Confabulations27.1%—
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper