Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 131K |
| Max output | 2K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 48% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 65.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1362 |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1331 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 32B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.