Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 34 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 34 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 2 categories and QwQ-32B in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 38.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 61.1% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | 54.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | 72% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1359 |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1324 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1297 |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1308 |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | 51.4% |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and QwQ-32B share?
34 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.