Model comparison

Gemma 7B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 7B Google

30.0

Rank #299 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 27.1.

Side by side

Gemma 7B and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
Gemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.046.0
Released2024-02-212026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.04
Output $ / M tokens—$2.30
Results tracked2731

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 30.5 (#294), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding10481482
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%
HumanEval+28.7%—
MBPP+43.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 7B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 19.9 (#249), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts10421460
Epoch Capabilities Index111.99149.38
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Adversarial NLI48.7%—
BIG-Bench Hard55.1%—
HellaSwag82.2%—
PIQA81.2%—
WinoGrande79%—

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 31.2 (#228), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math10661456
ProofBench—16%
GSM8K46.4%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 27.3 (#252), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert10011482
ARC (AI2) Challenge78.3%—
BoolQ83.2%—
MMLU66.1%—
OpenBookQA78.6%—
TriviaQA72.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 7B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 25.1 (#287), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English9991430
LMArena Chinese10351504
LMArena French10251465
LMArena Russian9931415
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 51.5 (#295), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following10171439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 31.1 (#282), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query10221450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemma 7B: 27.1 (#302), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 7BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text10561441
LMArena Creative Writing10241384
LMArena Multi-Turn9631441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 7B better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 7B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 30.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 7B and Qwen3.8 27B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 7B has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper