Model Comparison

Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

8 benchmarks

Gemma 2 9B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 8 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HellaSwag, HumanEval, MATH, MBPP, MMLU, Winogrande).

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 9B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input tokens$0.09
Output tokens$0.09
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

22.8B diff

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct has 22.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 9B, making it 246.3% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 9B
9.2Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
9.2B
Gemma 2 9B
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 9B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 9B is licensed under Gemma, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 2 9B

Gemma

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 9B was released on 2024-06-27, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 3 months newer than Gemma 2 9B.

Gemma 2 9B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.5 years ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (70.5% vs 68.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (91.1% vs 68.6%)
Higher HellaSwag score (83.0% vs 81.9%)
Higher HumanEval score (92.7% vs 40.2%)
Higher MATH score (57.2% vs 36.6%)
Higher MBPP score (90.2% vs 52.4%)
Higher MMLU score (75.1% vs 71.3%)
Higher Winogrande score (80.8% vs 80.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 9B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 9B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 2 9B is made by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 2 9B scores ARC-E: 88.0%, BoolQ: 84.2%, HellaSwag: 81.9%, PIQA: 81.7%, Winogrande: 80.6%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.
Gemma 2 9B supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 9B is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.