Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-32B
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 33.0 to 9.3.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2023-12-13 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1130 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1155 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1126 |
| MMLU | 70% | 74.4% |
Multilingual Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | 1027 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | 1089 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1116 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (32.2 vs 31.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-32B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.