# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 33.2 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 52.5% for Gemma 2 27B and 40.3% for Qwen1.5-72B.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 312 | 285 |
| Context | 8K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 40.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1148 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1164 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1136 |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1141 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1160 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen1.5-72B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.