Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B costs 1.6x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.40 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 28 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B: 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 LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 28
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 8
- Qwen3 32B only
- 17
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 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 32B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 7.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B takes 131K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 32B
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Qwen3 32B $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Qwen3 32B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 43.2 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against Qwen3 32B 66.9%, 65.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Qwen3 32B $0.40 per million output tokens, 1.6x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Qwen3 32B 131K.
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 32B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| 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 | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | Not measured | 40.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 54.6% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 36.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | 1357 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | 1366 | Qwen3 32B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 7.3 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | 138.4 | Qwen3 32B |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 29.8% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 48.7% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| BrowseComp-Plus | Not measured | 10.7% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 66.8% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 7.4% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 65.7% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | 1334 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | 1362 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | 1350 | Qwen3 32B |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 48.7% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 73.0 | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 73.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 66.9% | Qwen3 32B |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | 1399 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | 1420 | Qwen3 32B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 79.8% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | 1372 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | 1368 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | 1324 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | 1318 | Qwen3 32B |
| 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 32B | 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 | Qwen3 32B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 36.3% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | 67.5% | Qwen3 32B |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 17.3% | Qwen3 32B |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 74.2% | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1340 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | 1305 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | 1297 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | 1359 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | 1317 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | 1357 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | 1341 | Qwen3 32B |
| 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 | 1311 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | 1331 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | 1327 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | 1298 | Qwen3 32B |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | 1279 | Qwen3 32B |
| 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 32B | 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 32B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 32B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 32B 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 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | April 28, 2025 |
| Context window | 8K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.14 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.40 |
| 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 32B 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 LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B, with 131K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen3 32B comparison based on?
28 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 32B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.