Model comparison
Gemma 3n E4b IT vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemma 3n E4b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 3n E4b IT leads 35.1 to 16.2.
Side by side
| Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 30.1 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 37.0 (#198), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1268 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 19.9 (#247), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 31.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Gemma 3n E4b IT leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 35.1 (#188), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Gemma 3n E4b IT leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 34.2 (#198), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1246 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 43.4 (#183), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1309 | — |
| LMArena French | 1330 | — |
| LMArena German | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1259 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1288 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1305 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.1 (#210), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1255 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.7 (#191), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1276 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.1 (#186), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1276 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 3n E4b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3n E4b IT and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.