Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 55.8 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 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 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 44.9 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 78 | 7 |
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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.1 (#81), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | 128.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 31.9 (#191), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | 7.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | 56.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | — |
| 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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | 46.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 44.5 (#16), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1473 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.