Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen-14B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen-14B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1071 |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 113.03 |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1027 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1077 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Qwen-14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1022 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen-14B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen-14B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.