Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 30× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 22.5% for Gemma 3 27B and 100% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Gemma 3 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2025-03-11 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.08 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.16 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 21.2% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 4.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1674 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | 39.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 29.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1340 | 1496 |
| DTBench | 52.5% | 92% |
| LMCA | 12.3% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.04 | 156.41 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 43.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 51.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 50% | — |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 22.5% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1312 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| LiveBench Math | 55.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 74% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.7% | 92.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1304 | 1507 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
| Confabulations | 40.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |
Multimodal Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1314 |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1334 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1346 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1368 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1362 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1349 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1349 | 1492 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | 1479 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 74.9% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1333 | 1489 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1358 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1346 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1345 | 1489 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 79.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1266 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 30× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3.8 Max?
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.
Is Gemma 3 27B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Qwen3.8 Max share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.