# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs QwQ-32B

> Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.0 vs 39.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-qwq-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 25

## Summary

- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 52.5 to 45.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 55.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 162 | 153 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | 20.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.04 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87)
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1359 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 16.8% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1254 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1410 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1419 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1308 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1314 |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than QwQ-32B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.0 vs 39.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (35.5 vs 34.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ-32B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.