Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 26.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 33.8 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.46 |
Math Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1047 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 970 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | — |
| LMArena German | 944 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.