Model comparison
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B vs Gemma 2B
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); DeepSeek Coder 1.3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
GoogleSummary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek Coder 1.3B scores higher in 1 category and Gemma 2B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
Side by side
| DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | |
| Noometry Index | 35.0 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2023-11-02 | 2024-02-21 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek Coder 1.3B leads
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: 31.2 (#287), Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| HumanEval+ | 60.4% | 20.7% |
| MBPP+ | 54.8% | 34.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 22.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1010 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 29.6% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 63.6 | 94.2 |
| WinoGrande | 53.3% | 65.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 989 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 35.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 71.4% |
| PIQA | — | 77.3% |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | 4.4% | 17.7% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1009 |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 25.4% | 42.1% |
| MMLU | 25.8% | 42.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 69.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 53.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 958 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 986 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 937 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 970 |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 981 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —, Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1002 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 987 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 945 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek Coder 1.3B better than Gemma 2B?
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); DeepSeek Coder 1.3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is DeepSeek Coder 1.3B or Gemma 2B better for coding?
DeepSeek Coder 1.3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.2 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek Coder 1.3B and Gemma 2B share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek Coder 1.3B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2B has 23.