# Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.4 to 9.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 22.5% for Gemma 2 9B and 56.9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 341 | 245 |
| Context | — | 33K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | — | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | 58% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | 119.49 |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | 46.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1251 |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | 93% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1221 |
| MMLU | 72.1% | 79.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena German | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1223 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | 23.3% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Gemma 2 9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.4 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.