Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2B Google

29.6

Rank #307 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 30.0.
  • Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.656.8
Released2024-02-212026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked2339

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding10101502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
HumanEval+20.7%—
MBPP+34.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts9891496
Epoch Capabilities Index94.2156.41
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
BIG-Bench Hard35.2%—
HellaSwag71.4%—
PIQA77.3%—
WinoGrande65.4%—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math10091499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%
GSM8K17.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
LMArena Expert—1507
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.1%—
BoolQ69.4%—
MMLU42.3%—
TriviaQA53.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English9581472
LMArena Chinese9861538
LMArena Russian9371481
LMArena French—1503
LMArena German—1483
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following9701479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query9811489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkGemma 2BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text10021483
LMArena Creative Writing9871479
LMArena Multi-Turn9451489

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper