# Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-1-0-pro-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 33.0 to 9.3.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 332 | 293 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1130 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1155 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1126 |
| MMLU | 70% | 74.4% |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | 1027 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | 1089 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1140 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (32.2 vs 31.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.