Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3-1.7B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 26.2 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 3 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 37.1 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 38% for Qwen3-1.7B.
- Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 38% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3-1.7B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.