# Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen-14B

> Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-1-0-pro-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen-14B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen-14B leads 31.2 to 9.3.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 31.4 |
| Rank | 332 | 275 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1071 |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296)
- Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | 113.03 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1068 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 70% | 66.3% |
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252)
- Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | — |
| LMArena German | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267)
- Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1028 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264)
- Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1022 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen-14B?

Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.2 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen-14B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.