Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 57.9 to 24.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1412 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1403 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 143.98 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1407 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1446 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1400 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1374 |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.