Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Qwen-14B
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen-14B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads 49.8 to 27.8.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 34.8 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen-14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.2 (#308), Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1351 | 1072 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.0 (#85), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen-14B leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#308), Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 112.8 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.1 (#127), Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1351 | 1068 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#207), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 79.7% | 66.3% |
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1340 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 35.9 (#74), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.6 (#144), Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1390 | — |
| LMArena German | 1354 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1293 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1314 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.6 (#91), Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#198), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1029 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.8 (#184), Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1022 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Qwen-14B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Qwen-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.6 versus 28.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen-14B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.