Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 36.1 to 9.9.
- Gemma 2 9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1298 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.