# Gemma 2 9B vs QwQ-32B

> QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-qwq-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where QwQ-32B leads 37.2 to 9.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 15.2% for Gemma 2 9B and 83.5% for QwQ-32B.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 334 | 153 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | 1326 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | 72% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312)
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1359 |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1323 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1189 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1297 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | 51.4% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and QwQ-32B share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.