Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 39.7 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 83.5% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 56.1% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | 56.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 46.1% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (37.8 vs 38.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.