# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen1.5-14B

> Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 33.6.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 32.7 |
| Rank | 173 | 253 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1138 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1113 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1125 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1147 |
| LMArena French | — | 1116 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1102 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1113 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen1.5-14B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.