Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs QwQ-32B
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 55% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and 5% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 56.7 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-02-19 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | — |
| Results tracked | 71 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.6% | — |
| DeepSWE | 11.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1447 | — |
| SciCode | 58.9% | — |
| GSO | 22.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| MirrorCode | 8.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,161 | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#34), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 35.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 26% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.8% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 22% | — |
| BALROG | 57% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1211 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 77% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,774 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#12), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 55% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.77 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 59 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 77.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 79.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 97.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98% | — |
| CritPt | 17.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 36.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 79.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| DTBench | 97.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 53.8% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 62.1 (#34), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1485 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 86.5% | — |
| ProofBench | 26% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| 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), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.4% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1485 | 1324 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.5% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.9 (#69), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 26.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 26.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1444 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.0 (#12), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1477 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1487 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1491 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1493 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1455 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1498 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1479 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.0 (#32), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1466 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.4 (#18), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 20.8% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 16.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.1 (#37), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1481 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1482 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1491 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1488 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1142 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than QwQ-32B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and QwQ-32B share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.