Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen1.5-72B
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 6 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemma 2 2b IT leads 29.9 to 11.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 30.8 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1148 |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1164 |
Knowledge Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1157 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | 1110 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1141 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (32.3 vs 31.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen1.5-72B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.