Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen1.5-110B
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 38.0 to 25.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 34.2 |
| Released | — | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1185 |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1144 |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1206 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1123 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1118 |
| LMArena French | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1142 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1158 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-110B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-110B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.0 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen1.5-110B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.