# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 36.3 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 302 | 105 |
| Context | 8K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1412 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 48% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 143.98 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1408 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1392 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (33.5 vs 33.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.