# Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 32.3.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | 45.3 |
| Rank | 334 | 64 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.99 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | 1487 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | 1459 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | 149.38 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1453 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1482 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 2 9B: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1189 | 1468 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1444 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1436 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1448 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1382 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1443 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen3.8 27B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.