Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Gemma 1.1 2b IT has enough public results to be ranked (#313); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 30.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 38.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 39.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.2% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | — |
| MMLU | — | 79.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | — |
| LMArena German | 944 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?
Gemma 1.1 2b IT has enough public results to be ranked (#313); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.