# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen-14B

> Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen-14B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen-14B leads 28.7 to 10.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 302 | 273 |
| Context | 8K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
- Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1072 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
- Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 112.8 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
- Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1068 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 75.7% | 66.3% |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
- Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
- Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1029 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
- Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1022 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen-14B?

Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.5 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen-14B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.