# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3 14B

> Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3 14B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 14B leads 38.0 to 29.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 41.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 62.5% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 35.0 |
| Rank | 171 | 222 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 138.23 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 63.8% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | 62.5% |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3 14B?

Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (37.4 vs 36.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3 14B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.