Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 32.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 24.6% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 74.7% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.056.8
Released2025-03-252026-08-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$2
Output $ / M tokens$10$6
Results tracked7839

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena WebDev12271674
SciCode42.8%53.2%
LMArena Coding14521502
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
DeepSWE—57.5%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
FrontierSWE—17.8%
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
τ²-bench Banking13.7%55.1%
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
APEX-Agents—63.3%
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
GDP.pdf—23.2%
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
CritPt2%20%
Chess Puzzles20%40%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551496
DTBench82.4%92%
LMCA34.8%46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32156.41
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
ARC-AGI-141%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 40%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%100%
LMArena Math14501499
ProofBench—58%
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond85.3%92.7%
LMArena Expert14521507
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision12631314
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
Furniture Assembly—20%
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English14511472
LMArena Chinese15071538
LMArena French14721503
LMArena German14871483
LMArena Japanese14611467
LMArena Korean14341461
LMArena Russian14611481
LMArena Spanish14731492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14371479
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query14491489
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text14581483
LMArena Creative Writing14541479
LMArena Multi-Turn14531489
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.8 Max share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper