# Gemma 2B vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 24.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 40.7 |
| Rank | 307 | 146 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

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

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.