Model Comparison

Gemma 3n E2B 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

3 benchmarks

Gemma 3n E2B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, HellaSwag, Winogrande).

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

Fri May 01 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 May 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Gemma 3n E2B

Input tokens$0.00

Output tokens$0.00

Best providerUnknown Organization

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

24.0B diff

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct has 24.0B more parameters than Gemma 3n E2B, making it 300.0% larger.

Gemma 3n E2B

8.0Bparameters

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

32.0Bparameters

8.0B

Gemma 3n E2B

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).

Gemma 3n E2B

Input- tokens

Output- tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input128,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Fri May 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3n E2B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

Gemma 3n E2B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3n E2B

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3n E2B is licensed under a proprietary license, 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 3n E2B

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E2B was released on 2025-06-26, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Gemma 3n E2B is 9 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Gemma 3n E2B

Jun 26, 2025

10 months ago

9mo newer

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 3n E2B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemma 3n E2B's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemma 3n E2B

Jun 2024

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Gemma 3n E2B

View details

Google

Supports multimodal inputs

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (128,000 tokens)

Has open weights

Higher ARC-C score (70.5% vs 51.7%)

Higher HellaSwag score (83.0% vs 72.2%)

Higher Winogrande score (80.8% vs 66.8%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Gemma 3n E2B	Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E2B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3n E2B 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 3n E2B scores PIQA: 78.9%, BoolQ: 76.4%, ARC-E: 75.8%, HellaSwag: 72.2%, Winogrande: 66.8%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Gemma 3n E2B 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 multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Gemma 3n E2B is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Gemma 3n E2B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Performance Benchmarks

Arena Performance

Pricing Analysis

Model Size

Context Window

Input Capabilities

Gemma 3n E2B

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

License

Release Timeline

Knowledge Cutoff

Outputs Comparison

Key Takeaways

Gemma 3n E2B

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Detailed Comparison

FAQ

Which is better, Gemma 3n E2B or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

How does Gemma 3n E2B compare to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 3n E2B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

What are the main differences between Gemma 3n E2B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Who makes Gemma 3n E2B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?