Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-14B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 33.7.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 32.1 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 17 |
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: 37.4 (#182), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1138 |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1113 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1125 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1147 |
| LMArena French | — | 1115 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1102 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.