Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.0 Pro Google

27.3

Rank #332 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 9.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 100% for Qwen3.8 Max.

Side by side

Gemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.356.8
Released2023-12-132026-08-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked2439

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding11081502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
HumanEval+55.5%—
MBPP+61.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11091496
DTBench45.9%92%
Epoch Capabilities Index117.04156.41
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
LMCA—46.2%

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%100%
LMArena Math11321499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
ProofBench—58%
MATH Level 511.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond34%92.7%
LMArena Expert10591507
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
MMLU70%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English11381472
LMArena Chinese11241538
LMArena French11451503
LMArena German11251483
LMArena Japanese10231467
LMArena Russian11861481
LMArena Spanish11191492
LMArena Korean—1461

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following11141479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query11321489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text11491483
LMArena Creative Writing11311479
LMArena Multi-Turn11391489

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3.8 Max share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper