Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 32B leads 43.7 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 22.5% for Gemma 3 27B and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-03-11 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Max output | 8K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.08 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.16 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 22.1 (#329), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 4.9% | 40% |
| SciCode | 21.2% | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1358 |
| LiveBench Coding | 39.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 24.9 (#105), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 29.5% | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 16.3 (#297), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.4% | 54.9% |
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1340 | 1335 |
| DTBench | 52.5% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 12.3% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.04 | 138.51 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 43.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 51.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 50% | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 24.4 (#261), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 22.5% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1312 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Math | 55.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 74% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.4 (#256), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.7% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1303 | 1362 |
| Confabulations | 40.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 32.0 (#94), Qwen3 32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1165 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 47.0 (#150), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1334 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1347 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1362 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1349 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1368 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1348 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 70.8 (#155), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 74.9% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#288), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1333 | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemma 3 27B: 52.7 (#161), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1358 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1346 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1344 | 1331 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 79.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1266 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3 32B?
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 22.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 131K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3 32B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.