Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3 14B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 35.5 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 Qwen3 14B in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 14B leads 38.1 to 29.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 41.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 62.5% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 12 |
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), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 138.23 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 63.8% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | 62.5% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3 14B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (37.8 vs 37.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3 14B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.