Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3-1.7B
Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.1 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2B leads 27.6 to 15.4.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.1 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.