Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Pro Google

39.1

Rank #173 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.0

Rank #123 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads 42.4 to 29.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 83.5% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.142.0
Released2025-02-052026-02-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$2
Results tracked1428

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), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
Aider Polyglot35.6%—
LMArena WebDev—1254
SciCode—29.3%
LiveBench Coding63.5%—
LMArena Coding—1410

Reasoning Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
Epoch Capabilities Index135.06142.52
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles—10%
EnigmaEval0.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning60.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1400
DTBench—80%
LiveBench Data Analysis68%—
LMCA—29.5%
LiveBench65.1%—

Math Too close to call

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%
LiveBench Math71%—
LMArena Math—1404
MATH Level 583.5%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond65.7%83.5%
Confabulations18.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1408

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English—1378
LMArena Chinese—1457
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1367
LMArena Japanese—1325
LMArena Korean—1356
LMArena Russian—1376
LMArena Spanish—1392

Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LiveBench Instruction Following83.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following—1379

Long Context Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
Fiction.LiveBench41.7%—
LMArena Longer Query—1389

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text—1395
LMArena Creative Writing—1346
LMArena Multi-Turn—1390
LiveBench Language44.9%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper