# Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen3.5 27B

> Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-qwen3-5-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 37.4 to 9.7.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | 41.4 |
| Rank | 334 | 127 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | 1427 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1357 |
| WeirdML | — | 39.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 9B: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | 1414 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1428 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 2 9B: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1240 |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1189 | 1409 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1359 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1389 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1408 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1413 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1410 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen3.5 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.