# Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-2b-it-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.6 to 36.6.
- Gemma 2 2b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 244 | 142 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 31.8 (#268)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 20.5 (#219)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 30.1 (#212)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.3 (#229)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.5 (#252)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1156 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 58.1 (#258)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.2 (#245)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.6 (#258)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 31.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen2.5-Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.