Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.0 Pro Google

27.3

Rank #332 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #67 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 53.3 to 15.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 88.9% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.346.0
Released2023-12-132026-02-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked2436

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Coding11081465
LMArena WebDev—1400
HumanEval+55.5%—
MBPP+61.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
APEX-Agents—24.9%
τ²-bench Airline—81.5%
τ²-bench Banking—9.8%
τ²-bench Retail—84.4%
τ²-bench Telecom—97.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Hard Prompts11091448
DTBench45.9%87.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index117.04146.65
Kagi LLM Benchmark—73.7%
NYT Connections (extended)—58.9%
Chess Puzzles—13%
Thematic Generalization—65.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
LMCA—37.9%

Math Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%88.9%
LMArena Math11321454
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—31.2%
MATH Level 511.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
GPQA Diamond34%86.4%
LMArena Expert10591462
MMLU70%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Vision—1263

Multilingual Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Non-English11381430
LMArena Chinese11241500
LMArena French11451461
LMArena German11251447
LMArena Japanese10231426
LMArena Russian11861429
LMArena Spanish11191441
LMArena Korean—1384

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Instruction Following11141424

Long Context Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Longer Query11321442

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Text11491438
LMArena Creative Writing11311401
LMArena Multi-Turn11391446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1478

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper