Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 4 31B IT leads 43.2 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.3% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.34 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Gemma 4 31B IT accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 43.5 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-02 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Max output | 33K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.09 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.34 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemma 4 31B IT: 42.3 (#108), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1366 | — |
| SciCode | 43.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 925.5 | — |
Reasoning Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemma 4 31B IT: 27.2 (#122), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.74 | 128.52 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 63.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 70.6% | — |
| CritPt | 1.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 53% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1448 | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| LMCA | 39.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 30.6% | — |
Math Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemma 4 31B IT: 43.2 (#81), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1465 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#151), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 75.8% | 46.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 10.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1465 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.6 (#34), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1425 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 4 31B IT: 53.8 (#57), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | — |
| LMArena French | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1444 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.5 (#61), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#71), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.5 (#96), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1415 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1368 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1120 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1452 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 4 31B IT better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 31B IT or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.34 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemma 4 31B IT or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.3 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 4 31B IT does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 31B IT and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 31B IT has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.