Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 12B Google

32.1

Rank #262 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 12B scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 38.0 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 16.7% for Gemma 3 12B and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Gemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.139.8
Released2025-03-122024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.15—
Results tracked2436

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 31.7 (#280), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding12811333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
SciCode17.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 25.5 (#108), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard30.4%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 15.7 (#313), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles0%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13091325
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5137.6
CritPt0%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench48.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA4.5%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 22.3 (#279), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202516.7%59.2%
LMArena Math13071359
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 26.5 (#257), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond39.5%65.3%
LMArena Expert12481324
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate4.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: —, QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
MindCube46.7%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Gemma 3 12B: 45.7 (#165), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13181305
LMArena German13701313
LMArena Russian13351297
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1336
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 68.6 (#186), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12991297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 40.0 (#162), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query13171308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 47.5 (#209), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGemma 3 12BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13341329
LMArena Creative Writing13311288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11261257
LMArena Multi-Turn13341314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 3 12B or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 12B and QwQ-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 12B has 24 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper