Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Qwen3 14B
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.1 vs 35.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.3 to 28.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 37.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 49.1% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | 49.1% |
| DTBench | 63.2% | 64% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 66.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 63.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | — |
| LMArena French | 1391 | — |
| LMArena German | 1353 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Qwen3 14B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.1 vs 35.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen3 14B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.