# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 8K.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 39.2 |
| Rank | 312 | 172 |
| Context | 8K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)
- Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 48% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)
- Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 65.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1362 |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)
- Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)
- Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1331 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.