Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemma 2B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2B leads 30.0 to 16.2.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 2B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.