# Gemma 2B vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.1 vs 30.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 34.4 to 24.1.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 30.0 |
| Rank | 305 | 288 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1131 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1155 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 42.3% | 74.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1126 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1176 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1073 |
| LMArena French | — | 1100 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1007 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1140 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.1 vs 30.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is Gemma 2B or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.1 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.