Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 32B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 . 25 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 32B in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 43.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 83.1% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 40% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B 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.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.039.2
Released2025-03-252025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output66K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.80
Results tracked7826

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 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
Aider Polyglot83.1%40%
SciCode42.8%35.4%
LMArena Coding14521358
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
LMArena WebDev1227—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
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 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%54.9%
CritPt2%0.3%
Chess Puzzles20%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551334
DTBench82.4%67.5%
LMCA34.8%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32138.51
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%66.9%
LMArena Math14501399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
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 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond85.3%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%5.9%
LMArena Expert14521362
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14511317
LMArena Chinese15071357
LMArena German14871341
LMArena Russian14611311
LMArena French1472—
LMArena Japanese1461—
LMArena Korean1434—
LMArena Spanish1473—

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14371305
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%74.2%
LMArena Longer Query14491327

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14581340
LMArena Creative Writing14541297
LMArena Multi-Turn14531331
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3 32B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper