Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 36.6.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 45.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 31.8 (#268), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1487 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 20.5 (#219), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1459 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 30.1 (#212), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1453 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.3 (#229), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.5 (#252), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1156 | 1468 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | 1444 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 58.1 (#258), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1436 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.2 (#245), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1448 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.6 (#258), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1382 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 31.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen3.8 27B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.