Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 9B Google

25.9

Rank #341 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.8 to 9.9.

Side by side

Gemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index25.941.9
Released2024-06-242026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked3528

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding11731427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct34.7%—
LiveBench Coding22.5%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.6%—
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 9B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts11711414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LiveBench Reasoning15.2%—
DTBench—82.4%
LiveBench Data Analysis36.4%—
LMCA—34%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.83—
LiveBench28.7%—
PIQA83.7%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math11831429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—
LiveBench Math19.8%—
MATH Level 521%—
GSM8K84.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert11471428
GPQA Diamond27.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
BoolQ85.7%—
MMLU72.1%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 2 9B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English11881390
LMArena Chinese11851478
LMArena French11901410
LMArena German11861393
LMArena Japanese11441345
LMArena Korean11371358
LMArena Russian12001390
LMArena Spanish12001407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11781393
LiveBench Instruction Following52.6%—

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query11971413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text12071409
LMArena Creative Writing12061362
LMArena Multi-Turn11931410
EQ-Bench Creative Writing841—
LiveBench Language25.5%—

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper