Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | — |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 113.14 |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | 76.8% |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | 72.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | 17.7% | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | 60.9% |
| MMLU | 42.3% | 68% |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)?
Gemma 2B has enough public results to be ranked (#307); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has 6.