Model comparison

Gemma 3n E4b IT vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3n E4b IT Google

37.3

Rank #206 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3n E4b IT scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 38.7.

Side by side

Gemma 3n E4b IT and QwQ-32B specifications
Gemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.339.8
Released—2024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1836

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

Category by category

Coding Gemma 3n E4b IT leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 37.0 (#198), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding12681333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 19.9 (#247), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12841325
Kagi LLM Benchmark31.5%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 35.1 (#188), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Math12511359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 34.2 (#198), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert12461324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 43.4 (#183), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English12851305
LMArena Chinese13091378
LMArena French13301336
LMArena German13111313
LMArena Japanese12721262
LMArena Korean12591279
LMArena Russian12881297
LMArena Spanish13051354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.1 (#210), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12551297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.7 (#191), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query12761308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.1 (#186), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3n E4b ITQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13061329
LMArena Creative Writing12871288
LMArena Multi-Turn12761314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3n E4b IT better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 3n E4b IT or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Gemma 3n E4b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.0 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3n E4b IT and QwQ-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper