Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (28.8 vs 28.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads 48.8 to 25.3.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 28.6 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 29.6 (#294), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 18.2 (#268), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 28.3 (#230), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1047 | — |
Knowledge Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.0 (#255), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 970 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.7 (#284), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1011 | — |
| LMArena German | 944 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 50.1 (#294), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.5 (#281), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.3 (#301), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 958 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (28.8 vs 28.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.