Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemma 3 27B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 38.7 to 22.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 74% for Gemma 3 27B and 56.1% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2025-03-11 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Max output | 8K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.08 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.16 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 4.9% | — |
| SciCode | 21.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LiveBench Coding | 39.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 29.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.04 | 128.52 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.4% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 43.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1340 | — |
| DTBench | 52.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 51.5% | — |
| LMCA | 12.3% | — |
| LiveBench | 50% | — |
Math Gemma 3 27B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 22.5% | 7.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 74% | 56.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 55.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1312 | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.7% | 46.1% |
| Confabulations | 40.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1304 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1334 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena French | 1368 | — |
| LMArena German | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1349 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1349 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1333 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1346 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 79.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1266 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1345 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 3 27B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemma 3 27B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 131K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.