Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Google

56.7

Rank #23 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 14.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.729.0
Released2026-02-192024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output66K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$12$0.70
Results tracked7115

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.5 (#99), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified75.6%—
DeepSWE11.7%—
LMArena WebDev1447—
SciCode58.9%—
GSO22.6%—
WeirdML72.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1484—
MirrorCode8.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%
ALE-Bench1,161—
AlgoTune2.02—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#34), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BALROG57%7.8%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents35.3%—
τ²-bench Banking26%—
DeepResearch Bench47.8%—
PostTrainBench22%—
ExploitBench26.1%—
GBAEval0.8%—
GDP.pdf17%—
LMArena Search1211—
METR Time Horizons77%—
Vending-Bench 23,774—

Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#12), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles55%0%
DTBench97.1%47.7%
LMCA53.8%6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index154.77118.51
ARC-AGI-277.1%—
SimpleBench79.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)97.4%—
ARC-AGI-198%—
CritPt17.7%—
EnigmaEval36.8%—
Thematic Generalization79.4%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1485—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
ForecastBench59—

Math Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 62.1 (#34), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%2.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions86.5%—
ProofBench26%—
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1485—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)36.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)16.7%—

Knowledge Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond94.4%35.5%
Humanity's Last Exam46.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.5%—
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.4%—
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1485—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.9 (#69), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1296—
Blueprint-Bench 226.5%—
Furniture Assembly26.7%—
LMArena Document1444—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.0 (#12), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1477—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena French1487—
LMArena German1491—
LMArena Japanese1493—
LMArena Korean1455—
LMArena Russian1498—
LMArena Spanish1479—

Instruction Following Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.0 (#32), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1466—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.4 (#18), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
CL-bench20.8%—
CL-bench Life16.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.1 (#37), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1481—
LMArena Creative Writing1482—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491—
WildBench—73.1%
EQ-Bench 41142—
LMArena Multi-Turn1488—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 and $12.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper