Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 1.1 2b IT Google

29.3

Rank #313 Confirmed

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 235B-A22B leads 59.6 to 25.1.

Side by side

Gemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.343.5
Released—2025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—16K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked1649

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding10341445
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
SciCode—42.4%
WeirdML—41%
HumanEval+17.7%—
MBPP+23.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
Vending-Bench 2—-11.34

Reasoning Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts10051433
ARC-AGI-2—1.3%
SimpleBench—31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—69.4%
ARC-AGI-1—11%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—12%
Mystery Game Puzzles—9%
DTBench—80.3%
LMCA—29.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.85
ForecastBench—59.7

Math Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Math10471432
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
Omni-MATH—71.8%
MATH Level 5—68.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—8.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert9701463
GPQA Diamond—80.1%
SimpleQA Verified—40.4%
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multilingual Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English9881409
LMArena Chinese10121481
LMArena German9441433
LMArena Korean8991391
LMArena Russian9901411
LMArena French—1445
LMArena Japanese—1399
LMArena Spanish—1430

Instruction Following Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following9921408
IFEval—83.5%

Long Context Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query10031426
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text10221419
LMArena Creative Writing9981384
LMArena Multi-Turn9591432
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1366
WildBench—86.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen3 235B-A22B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper