# Gemma 2 27B vs QwQ-32B

> QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-qwq-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 36.2 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 302 | 153 |
| Context | 8K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1326 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | 72% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1359 |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1323 |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1297 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | 51.4% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.

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

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

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

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.