Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.1 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 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 36.5.
- Gemma 2 2b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 40.7 |
| Released | — | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1157 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen2.5-Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.