Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen1.5-14B
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 33.6 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1138 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1113 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1125 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 42.3% | 68.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1094 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1147 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1046 |
| LMArena French | — | 1116 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1102 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-14B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.