Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-7B
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-7B leads 29.0 to 8.7.
- Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 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 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 31.6 (#270), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1107 |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 16.4 (#292), Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1066 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 116.97 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 8.7 (#315), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1080 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.5 (#286), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1055 |
| MMLU | 70% | 62.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.5 (#247), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1144 | — |
| LMArena German | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1118 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.9 (#262), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1058 |
Long Context Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#244), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.2 (#259), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1130 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1061 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-7B?
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (31.6 vs 31.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-7B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.