# Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 24.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 46.0 |
| Rank | 307 | 68 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.30 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1482 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2B: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1460 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 149.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1456 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 2B: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1504 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1415 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1439 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1450 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |

## FAQ

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

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.