Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 E2B
23
Qwen3 235B 2507
33
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Knowledge
+22.1 difference
Gemma 4 E2B
Qwen3 235B 2507
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128K
128K
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Qwen3 235B 2507 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 33 to 23. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3 235B 2507's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 76.2 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 43.4% to 77.5%.
Gemma 4 E2B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Qwen3 235B 2507 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 33 to 23. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 77.5%.
Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.2 versus 54.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.