Model comparison
Gemma 3 4B vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 28.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 4B scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where QwQ-32B leads 37.2 to 11.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.5% for Gemma 3 4B and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 28.1 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-03-12 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.08 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemma 3 4B: 35.9 (#215), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1230 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 3 4B: 20.9 (#142), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 19.6% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 13.2 (#335), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1253 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 116.02 | 137.6 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 25.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 50.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 2.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 16.8 (#292), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.5% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1239 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 11.8 (#299), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.2% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1223 | 1324 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.4% | — |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 42.5 (#194), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1273 | 1305 |
| LMArena German | 1281 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 1294 | 1297 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 65.2 (#225), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 38.7 (#194), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1273 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Gemma 3 4B: 42.0 (#239), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 4B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1291 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1271 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1068 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1255 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 4B better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 28.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 3 4B or QwQ-32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (35.9 vs 35.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 4B and QwQ-32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 4B has 22 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.