Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-7B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 31.4 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 29.6.
- Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 13 |
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), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1107 |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1065 |
| 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), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1080 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1055 |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1006 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1058 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1090 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1062 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-7B?
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 Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.