Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen-Plus
Gemma 2 27B costs 1.2x less per output token than Qwen-Plus ($0.65 vs $0.78 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 28 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Qwen-Plus: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.65 vs $0.78 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 28
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 8
- Qwen-Plus only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus takes 1M tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen-Plus
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Qwen-Plus $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen-Plus not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 22.8 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- MATH level 5: Gemma 2 27B 27.9% against Qwen-Plus 65.3%, 37.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen-Plus $0.78 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen-Plus 1M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | Qwen-Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 4 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 14 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 28 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | 1328 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | 1343 | Qwen-Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 48.1% | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | 1317 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | 1328 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | 1333 | Qwen-Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 17.8% | Qwen-Plus |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | 65.3% | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | 1326 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | 1332 | Qwen-Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | 1352 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | 1350 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | 1349 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | 1303 | Qwen-Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 48.0% | 81.1% | Qwen-Plus |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 24.0% | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1326 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | 1303 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | 1292 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | 1339 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | 1310 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | 1347 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | 1251 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | 1323 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | 1336 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | 1324 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | 1296 | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | 1270 | Qwen-Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemma 2 27B | Qwen-Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | February 1, 2025 |
| Context window | 8K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.26 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.78 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen-Plus for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.65 vs $0.78 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen-Plus?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 and $0.78. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen-Plus?
Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen-Plus comparison based on?
28 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen-Plus's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.