Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instructWhich is better in 2026?

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Verdict: Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct — which is better?

Gemma 2 27B (by Google) and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct (by Microsoft) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 3 benchmarks (BoolQ, HellaSwag, Winogrande), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 8 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MBPP, MMLU, PIQA, Social IQa). Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Choose Gemma 2 27B if…

  • you are already invested in the Google ecosystem

Choose Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 8 of 11 shared benchmarks
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2024
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

11 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 3 benchmarks (BoolQ, HellaSwag, Winogrande), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 8 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MBPP, MMLU, PIQA, Social IQa).

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Tue Jun 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

32.8B diff

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct has 32.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 120.6% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
60.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
60.0B
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 2 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is 2 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

2.0 years ago

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

1.8 years ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Higher BoolQ score (84.8% vs 84.6%)
Higher HellaSwag score (86.4% vs 83.8%)
Higher Winogrande score (83.7% vs 81.3%)
Microsoft
Higher ARC-C score (91.0% vs 71.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (88.7% vs 74.0%)
Higher HumanEval score (70.7% vs 51.8%)
Higher MATH score (59.5% vs 42.3%)
Higher MBPP score (80.8% vs 62.6%)
Higher MMLU score (78.9% vs 75.2%)
Higher PIQA score (88.6% vs 83.2%)
Higher Social IQa score (78.0% vs 53.7%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Which is better, Gemma 2 27B or Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemma 2 27B compare to Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct in benchmarks?

Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct scores ARC-C: 91.0%, OpenBookQA: 89.6%, GSM8k: 88.7%, PIQA: 88.6%, RULER: 87.1%.

What are the main differences between Gemma 2 27B and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 2 27B and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons