Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
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 Qwen3 14B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 14B leads 38.6 to 30.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 138.23 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Qwen3 14B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3 14B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.