Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen-14B

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

Qwen-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #275 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads 56.8 to 27.6.
  • Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.031.4
Released2025-06-172023-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3318

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Coding13731071
WeirdML35.2%—
ALE-Bench325.9—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts13771027
Epoch Capabilities Index133.94113.03
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
DTBench62.8%—
LMCA18.1%—
BIG-Bench Hard—55%
LAMBADA—71.1%
PIQA—79.9%

Math Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Math13731068
Omni-MATH48%—
GSM8K—61.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—
LMArena Expert1373—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—84.4%
BoolQ—86.2%
MMLU—66.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Vision1198—
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Non-English13691041
LMArena Chinese14041077
LMArena French1388—
LMArena German1389—
LMArena Japanese1359—
LMArena Korean1360—
LMArena Russian1373—
LMArena Spanish1396—

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Instruction Following13671031
IFEval81%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Longer Query13731028
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen-14B
LMArena Text13791051
LMArena Creative Writing13671028
LMArena Multi-Turn13661022
WildBench81.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen-14B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen-14B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper