Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-72B
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 33.2 to 9.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 34% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2023-12-13 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 22 |
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1165 |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | 61.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1148 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1164 |
| 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), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1136 |
| MMLU | 70% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | 1061 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | 1110 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1141 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (32.2 vs 31.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-72B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.