Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen1.5-7B

Gemma 3 27B and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.8

Rank #284 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen1.5-7B 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 29.6.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.831.4
Released2025-03-112024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.08—
Output $ / M tokens$0.16—
Results tracked4313

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen1.5-7B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Coding13221107
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Qwen1.5-7B: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard29.5%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts13401065
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.4%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles0%—
LiveBench Reasoning43.8%—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis51.5%—
LMCA12.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.04—
LiveBench50%—

Math Qwen1.5-7B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Math13121080
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202522.5%—
LiveBench Math55.4%—
MATH Level 574%—

Knowledge Qwen1.5-7B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Expert13041055
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—
MMLU—62.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Qwen1.5-7B: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Vision1164—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Non-English13341058
LMArena Chinese13461141
LMArena Russian13491006
LMArena French1368—
LMArena German1362—
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1308—
LMArena Spanish1349—

Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Instruction Following13211058
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—

Long Context Qwen1.5-7B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Longer Query13331090
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—

Writing & Preference Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BQwen1.5-7B
LMArena Text13581083
LMArena Creative Writing13461035
LMArena Multi-Turn13451062
Short-Story Creative Writing79.9%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1266—
LiveBench Language34.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen1.5-7B?

Gemma 3 27B and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Gemma 3 27B or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.2 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper