Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B Google

29.9

Rank #301 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 14.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.6% for Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.939.2
Released2024-10-032025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—16K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked2126

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 35.5 (#225), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Coding12181358
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Too close to call

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 20.0 (#244), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12091334
DTBench50%67.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 14.2 (#302), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.6%66.9%
LMArena Math12071399

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 16.0 (#289), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond33%65.7%
LMArena Expert11851362
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 28.2 (#115), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1044—

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 38.5 (#229), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English12151317
LMArena Chinese12311357
LMArena German12061341
LMArena Russian12361311
LMArena French1234—
LMArena Japanese1150—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Spanish1212—

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 62.8 (#236), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following11991305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 37.0 (#225), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query12191327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: 42.8 (#232), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkGemini 1.5 Flash 8BQwen3 32B
LMArena Text12261340
LMArena Creative Writing12181297
LMArena Multi-Turn11851331

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 35.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B and Qwen3 32B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper