# Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 312 | 42 |
| Context | 8K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 48% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 153.68 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1460 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1482 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3.7 Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.