# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 42.4 to 29.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 82.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 171 | 105 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 143.98 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1404 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1408 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1446 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1392 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.