Model Comparison

Gemma 3 1B 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

6 benchmarks

Gemma 3 1B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 6 benchmarks (GSM8k, HumanEval, LiveCodeBench, MATH, MBPP, MMLU-Pro).

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

Thu Apr 16 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
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3 1B
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

31.0B diff

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct has 31.0B more parameters than Gemma 3 1B, making it 3100.0% larger.

Google
Gemma 3 1B
1.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
1.0B
Gemma 3 1B
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 3 1B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3 1B 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 3 1B

Gemma

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3 1B was released on 2025-03-12, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Gemma 3 1B is 6 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Gemma 3 1B

Mar 12, 2025

1.1 years ago

5mo newer
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.6 years ago

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 GSM8k score (91.1% vs 62.8%)
Higher HumanEval score (92.7% vs 41.5%)
Higher LiveCodeBench score (31.4% vs 1.9%)
Higher MATH score (57.2% vs 48.0%)
Higher MBPP score (90.2% vs 35.2%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (50.4% vs 14.7%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3 1B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3 1B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3 1B 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 3 1B scores IFEval: 80.2%, GSM8k: 62.8%, Natural2Code: 56.0%, MATH: 48.0%, HumanEval: 41.5%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.
Gemma 3 1B 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 3 1B is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.