Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs QwQ-32B
Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 52.3 to 44.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 55.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | 20.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1359 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 16.8% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1324 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1314 |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than QwQ-32B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (35.8 vs 35.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.