Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs QwQ-32B
Gemini 2.0 Pro and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 29.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 41.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | 20.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | 72% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1325 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | 77.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1324 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1297 |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Text | — | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1314 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than QwQ-32B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.1 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and QwQ-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.