# ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemma 2B

> ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/ernie-5-1-vs-gemma-2b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. ERNIE 5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Gemma 2B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where ERNIE 5.1 leads 65.1 to 24.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Google |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 29.6 |
| Rank | 83 | 307 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- ERNIE 5.1: 44.0 (#76)
- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1010 |
| HumanEval+ | — | 20.7% |
| MBPP+ | — | 34.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- ERNIE 5.1: —
- Gemma 2B: —

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |

## Reasoning

- ERNIE 5.1: 21.9 (#211)
- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 989 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 35.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 94.2 |
| HellaSwag | — | 71.4% |
| PIQA | — | 77.3% |
| WinoGrande | — | 65.4% |

## Math

- ERNIE 5.1: 40.3 (#92)
- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1009 |
| GSM8K | — | 17.7% |

## Knowledge

- ERNIE 5.1: 41.9 (#102)
- Gemma 2B: —

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 42.1% |
| BoolQ | — | 69.4% |
| MMLU | — | 42.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 53.2% |

## Multilingual

- ERNIE 5.1: 55.5 (#29)
- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1454 | 958 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1508 | 986 |
| LMArena Russian | 1459 | 937 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |

## Instruction Following

- ERNIE 5.1: 76.7 (#37)
- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | 970 |

## Long Context

- ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#59)
- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | 981 |

## Writing & Preference

- ERNIE 5.1: 65.1 (#52)
- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)

| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | 1002 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1441 | 987 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | 945 |

## FAQ

### Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Gemma 2B?

ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 2B better for coding?

ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Gemma 2B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2B has 23.