# Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 30.7 to 9.3.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | 30.3 |
| Rank | 334 | 282 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | 1166 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | 40.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | 1148 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1164 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1136 |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1189 | 1158 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1049 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1142 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.4 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen1.5-72B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.