Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-72B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.8 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 Qwen1.5-72B 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 11.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 22 |
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1148 |
| 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), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1164 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 28.8% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1136 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1186 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1141 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-72B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-72B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.