Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 28.8 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 Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.6 to 25.3.
- Gemma 1.1 2b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 40.1 |
| Released | — | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 29.6 (#294), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 18.2 (#268), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 28.3 (#230), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.0 (#255), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.7 (#284), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1011 | 1382 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1350 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 50.1 (#294), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.5 (#281), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.3 (#301), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 958 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5-Max share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.