Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 49.5 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 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 38.1 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 29.6 (#294), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1314 |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 18.2 (#268), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1299 |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 28.3 (#230), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1298 |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.0 (#255), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1289 |
Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.7 (#284), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1011 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1231 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1271 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 50.1 (#294), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1275 |
Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.5 (#281), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.3 (#301), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 958 | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.