Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 39.2.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 14 |
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1314 |
| 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: 29.2 (#88), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1299 |
| 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 Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1298 |
| 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: 56.0 (#46), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1289 |
| 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: 45.2 (#18), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1292 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1299 |
| 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 Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.