Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 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 0 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 35.9 to 29.4.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 33.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 139.46 |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-9B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3.5-9B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.