Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen1.5-32B

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite Google

37.3

Rank #189 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads 34.6 to 13.5.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.330.0
Released2025-02-052024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3221

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.4 (#181), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding13221155
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
LiveBench Coding47.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Reasoning Too close to call

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 21.2 (#203), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13241131
LiveBench Reasoning50.1%—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
ForecastBench57.1—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.8 (#192), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13091155
Omni-MATH37.4%—
LiveBench Math58.1%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.6 (#185), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert13051126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
MMLU-Pro72%—
GPQA (HELM)50%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 30.6 (#103), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1100—

Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.2 (#156), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13231106
LMArena Chinese13391176
LMArena French13461100
LMArena German13061058
LMArena Japanese13021027
LMArena Korean13251007
LMArena Russian13281073
LMArena Spanish13131089

Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.6 (#158), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13051116
LiveBench Instruction Following78.3%—
IFEval82.4%—

Long Context Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#155), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13211146

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.9 (#172), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13301137
LMArena Creative Writing13191083
LMArena Multi-Turn13071140
WildBench79%—
LiveBench Language34.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper