Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen1.5-72B
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 37.4 to 24.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 30.3 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1166 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | 61.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1148 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1164 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1136 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1186 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1104 |
| LMArena French | — | 1158 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1049 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1142 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.4 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-72B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.