Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen1.5-7B
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-7B leads 29.8 to 24.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1107 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1066 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1080 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 42.3% | 62.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1055 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1006 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1058 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1061 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen1.5-7B?
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.6 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen1.5-7B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.