# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen-14B

> Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen-14B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 27.8.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 171 | 273 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1072 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 112.8 |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1027 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1077 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1029 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1022 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen-14B?

Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen-14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.