Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen-14B
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 2 2b IT leads 36.5 to 27.6.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 31.4 |
| Released | — | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1071 |
Reasoning Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1157 | — |
| LMArena German | 1114 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1031 |
Long Context Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen-14B?
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.3 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.