Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-32B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.5 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 6 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 36.5 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 21 |
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1130 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 30.7% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1126 |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1177 |
| LMArena French | — | 1101 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1116 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1140 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-32B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.