# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 22.3.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 46.0 |
| Rank | 173 | 68 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.30 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1482 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 149.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1460 |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1456 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1504 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1439 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1450 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1384 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1441 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.8 27B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.