Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.2 to 28.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 78.2% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 51.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 34.8 | 40.1 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.2 (#308), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1351 | 1359 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.0 (#85), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#308), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | 62.3% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.1 (#127), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1351 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#207), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 12.4% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1340 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 35.9 (#74), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.6 (#144), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1390 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1354 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1293 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1314 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.6 (#91), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1335 |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#198), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1358 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.8 (#184), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | 56.3% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 28.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen2.5-Max share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.