Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 37.1 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 48% for Gemma 2 27B and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 262K |
| Max output | 2K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1482 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1460 |
| DTBench | 48% | 88% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 41.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 149.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1456 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1482 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1465 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1448 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1439 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.8 27B?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.8 27B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.