# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 26

## Summary

- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 34.3 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Math: 26.5% for Gemma 2 27B and 58.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 302 | 142 |
| Context | 8K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | 62.3% |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 27.1% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1335 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | 56.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen2.5-Max share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.