# Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat

> Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-qwen1-5-4b-chat
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 63.7 to 23.8.
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 28.8 |
| Rank | 75 | 322 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 999 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 976 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1026 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 980 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 979 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1024 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 902 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 952 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 978 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 988 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 997 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 969 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 977 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen1.5 4b Chat?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.