Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Gemma 3 12B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 12B Google

32.1

Rank #262 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 12B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 38.7 to 31.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 16.7% for Gemma 3 12B and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • Gemma 3 12B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.

Side by side

Gemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.130.1
Released2025-03-122024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K131K
Max output8K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.05$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$2.80
Results tracked247

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Gemma 3 12B: 31.7 (#280), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
SciCode17.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1281—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 25.5 (#108), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard30.4%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Gemma 3 12B: 15.7 (#313), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles0%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5128.52
CritPt0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1309—
DTBench48.8%—
LMCA4.5%—

Math Gemma 3 12B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 22.3 (#279), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202516.7%7.4%
LMArena Math1307—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge Gemma 3 12B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 26.5 (#257), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond39.5%46.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate4.4%—
LMArena Expert1248—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
MindCube46.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 45.7 (#165), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1318—
LMArena German1370—
LMArena Russian1335—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 68.6 (#186), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1299—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 40.0 (#162), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1317—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 47.5 (#209), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1334—
LMArena Creative Writing1331—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1126—
LMArena Multi-Turn1334—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Gemma 3 12B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 12B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 12B has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper