Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 8B

Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.7

Rank #238 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 8B in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 8B leads 34.9 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 56.1% for Qwen3 8B.
  • Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Qwen3 8B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.433.7
Released2024-06-242025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K131K
Max output2K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.70
Results tracked3411

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3 8B: 34.0 (#248)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
SciCode—22.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
LMArena Coding1211—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning Qwen3 8B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
DTBench48%59.7%
LMCA7.1%8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08136.17
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1198—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Qwen3 8B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%56.1%
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3 8B leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond36.5%56.8%
Confabulations27.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1172—
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
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 8B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1206—

Long Context Too close to call

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1231—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 8B
LMArena Text1231—
LMArena Creative Writing1241—
LMArena Multi-Turn1224—
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (34.1 vs 34.0); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 8B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper