Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Gemma 2 27B costs 5.4x less per output token than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 ($0.65 vs $3.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 31 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 2 27B Replace Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Qwen
Coding
No data
Overall
52.9
Output $/M
$3.50
31
vs boards won of 31 shared

Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: 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 5.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $3.50 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Model AGemma 2 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507QwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
31
Gemma 2 27B only
5
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 only
15
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 51.4 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 86.7%, 85.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 $3.50 per million output tokens, 5.4x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 128K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 2 27BBarsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Ties
Coding02
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge04
General018
All shared boards031
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Coding IndexNot measured22.1Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
WeirdMLNot measured41.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: coding12111424Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: software and IT12281431Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured12.7Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.3Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured-$11Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%80.1%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured9.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11981416Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: expert11711463Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12061432Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%86.7%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
MATH level 527.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: math12121412Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: mathematical work12211435Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured40.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
MMLU75.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: science12281433Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11981456Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: legal and government12411415Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: business and finance12081413Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1052Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured942Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured956Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured950Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured997Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1032Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index018
General benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
DTBench48.0%80.3%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMCA7.1%29.3%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured75.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text12311415Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: instruction following12061386Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: creative writing12401384Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: English12421429Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: non-English12171397Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Chinese12211481Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: German12091408Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Japanese11751386Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Korean11741375Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: French1248Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish12281389Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Russian12341401Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Polish12771390Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: multi-turn12241406Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: longer queries12301400Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: writing and language12491388Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12121370Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
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
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
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

Gemma 2 27B$0.0010Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.0022Fits in one request

Gemma 2 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.033Fits in one request

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.125Exceeds the context window

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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.

Specifications of Gemma 2 27B and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024July 25, 2025
Context window8K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.65$3.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 5.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $3.50 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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.45 and $3.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507, with 128K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 comparison based on?

31 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next