Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3 8B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.7 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 4 categories and Qwen3 8B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 8B leads 37.9 to 29.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 41.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 62.1% for Qwen3 8B.
- Qwen3 8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 33.7 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
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 8B: 34.0 (#248)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 22.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 42.6% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 136.17 |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| DTBench | — | 59.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 8.8% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 56.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 56.8% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.8% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 8B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | 62.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3 8B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3 8B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3 8B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.