Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B costs 2.8x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.23 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 14B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 2 27B for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 31
- Qwen3 14B only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Qwen3 14B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 6.7.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B takes 41K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 14B
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Qwen3 14B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3 14B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 65.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3 14B 66.4%, 65.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3 14B $0.23 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3 14B 41K.
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 | Qwen3 14B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| Math | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 5 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 52.3% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 30.7% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 5.3% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 6.7 | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | 138.2 | Qwen3 14B |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 41.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 60.4% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 4.5% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 63.8% | Qwen3 14B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 49.1% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 58.0 | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 58.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 66.4% | Qwen3 14B |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 77.4% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 40.5% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | 64.0% | Qwen3 14B |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 18.2% | Qwen3 14B |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 62.5% | Only Qwen3 14B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| 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 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 14B | 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
Qwen3 14B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 14B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 14B 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 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | April 28, 2025 |
| Context window | 8K | 41K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.11 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.23 |
| 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 Qwen3 14B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 14B?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B costs $0.11 and $0.23. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B, with 41K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 14B comparison based on?
5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 14B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.