Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 37.8 to 22.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Instruction Following: 83.4% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 58.7% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 31 |
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | 16.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | 56.9% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 119.49 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | 46.2% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | 23.3% |
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.