Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen-14B
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen-14B in 7 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 31.4 |
| Released | — | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen-14B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1071 |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Qwen-14B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1077 |
| LMArena German | 944 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen-14B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1031 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Qwen-14B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen-14B?
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Qwen-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.2 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.