Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen Max
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 30.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
- Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 34.7 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Max output | 66K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 78 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1288 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1269 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1275 |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | 1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1248 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | 1290 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1262 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | 66.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1288 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1277 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen Max?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen Max better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen Max share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.