Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen1.5-32B
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 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 1 category and Qwen1.5-32B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads 26.5 to 13.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 30.5 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1130 |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1155 |
Knowledge Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1177 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1058 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1073 |
| LMArena French | — | 1101 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1116 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.7 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen1.5-32B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.