Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 29.3 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 Qwen3-30B-A3B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 55.6 to 25.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 38.9 |
| Released | — | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 41K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1416 |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 29.8% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1398 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | — | 69.3% |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.63 |
Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 70.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1396 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
Multilingual Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1433 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1380 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1370 |
| LMArena French | — | 1418 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1404 |
Instruction Following Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1363 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1379 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1317 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1378 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.