Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 29.4.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 38.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 39.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.2% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 42.3% | 79.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.