Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 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 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 38.0 to 9.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2023-12-13 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | 137.6 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1324 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| MMLU | 70% | — |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | 1354 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and QwQ-32B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.