Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 63.9 to 23.9.
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 44.9 | 28.3 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 13 |
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: 42.8 (#86), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 28.6 (#305)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 999 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| 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: 29.1 (#81), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (#85), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 17.7 (#277)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 976 |
| 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: 31.9 (#191), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 27.9 (#233)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1026 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.8 (#41), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.2 (#252)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 980 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| 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: 44.5 (#16), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.2 (#285)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 979 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1024 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 902 |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | 952 |
| LMArena French | 1473 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.3 (#295)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 979 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#285)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 988 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.9 (#304)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 997 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 969 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 977 |
| 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 Qwen1.5 4b Chat?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.