Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 31.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 91.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 40.6% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 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 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.038.9
Released2025-03-252025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M41K
Max output66K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.50
Results tracked7832

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), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
SciCode42.8%33.3%
WeirdML54%29.8%
LMArena Coding14521416
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
LMArena WebDev1227—
GSO3.9%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%54.9%
CritPt2%0.3%
Chess Puzzles20%8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551398
DTBench82.4%69.3%
LMCA34.8%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32139.63
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%70.3%
LMArena Math14501394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—47.8%
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
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), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond85.3%70.1%
Confabulations10.6%12.3%
LMArena Expert14521396
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14511372
LMArena Chinese15071433
LMArena French14721418
LMArena German14871380
LMArena Japanese14611337
LMArena Korean14341331
LMArena Russian14611370
LMArena Spanish14731404

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14371363
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%40.6%
LMArena Longer Query14491379

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text14581384
LMArena Creative Writing14541317
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%75.3%
LMArena Multi-Turn14531378
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 16× 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 Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper