Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 36.9 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 22.5% for Gemma 2 9B and 64.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
- Gemma 2 9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1335 |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | 56.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen2.5-Max share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.