Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen1.5-14B

Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.8

Rank #284 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 3 27B leads 52.5 to 33.6.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27B and Qwen1.5-14B specifications
Gemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.832.7
Released2025-03-112024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.08—
Output $ / M tokens$0.16—
Results tracked4317

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen1.5-14B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding13221138
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard29.5%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts13401113
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.4%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles0%—
LiveBench Reasoning43.8%—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis51.5%—
LMCA12.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.04—
LiveBench50%—

Math Qwen1.5-14B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math13121125
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202522.5%—
LiveBench Math55.4%—
MATH Level 574%—

Knowledge Qwen1.5-14B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert13041094
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1164—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English13341095
LMArena Chinese13461147
LMArena French13681116
LMArena German13621043
LMArena Japanese12871019
LMArena Russian13491046
LMArena Spanish13491085
LMArena Korean1308—

Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following13211102
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—

Long Context Qwen1.5-14B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query13331113
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—

Writing & Preference Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text13581128
LMArena Creative Writing13461091
LMArena Multi-Turn13451110
Short-Story Creative Writing79.9%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1266—
LiveBench Language34.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 3 27B or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.1 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper