Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 39.1 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 3 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.4 to 29.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Math: 71% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 58.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | 64.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | 62.3% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1360 |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 18.4% | 21.8% |
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1335 |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | 56.3% |
| LMArena Text | — | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen2.5-Max share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.