Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 9.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 27.3 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2023-12-13 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | 67.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 117.04 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1399 |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | 65.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1362 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| MMLU | 70% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1119 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1131 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3 32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.