Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2 2b IT leads 32.6 to 16.2.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 30.1 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1135 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena French | 1157 | — |
| LMArena German | 1114 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.