Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 7b IT vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 7b IT scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 41.6 to 30.4.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 31.3 | 33.4 |
| Released | — | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 1.1 7b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 31.5 (#284), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1084 | 1276 |
| HumanEval+ | 35.4% | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | 45% | 77% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 20.5 (#238), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1071 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 32.0 (#220), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1107 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 28.3 (#247), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 28.1 (#273), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1052 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1061 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1046 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1065 | — |
| LMArena German | 1054 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 971 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 988 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1049 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 54.0 (#283), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1057 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 32.1 (#272), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1056 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 30.4 (#288), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 7b IT | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1094 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1060 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1040 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Gemma 1.1 7b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 7b IT and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 7b IT has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.