Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Google

56.7

Rank #23 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 21.2.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.733.4
Released2026-02-192024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M33K
Max output66K29K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$12$1
Results tracked7131

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.5 (#99), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14841276
SWE-bench Verified75.6%—
DeepSWE11.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1447—
SciCode58.9%—
GSO22.6%—
WeirdML72.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
MirrorCode8.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,161—
AlgoTune2.02—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#34), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents35.3%—
τ²-bench Banking26%—
DeepResearch Bench47.8%—
PostTrainBench22%—
BALROG57%—
ExploitBench26.1%—
GBAEval0.8%—
GDP.pdf17%—
LMArena Search1211—
METR Time Horizons77%—
Vending-Bench 23,774—

Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#12), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14851251
Epoch Capabilities Index154.77119.49
ARC-AGI-277.1%—
SimpleBench79.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)97.4%—
ARC-AGI-198%—
CritPt17.7%—
Chess Puzzles55%—
EnigmaEval36.8%—
Thematic Generalization79.4%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA53.8%—
ForecastBench59—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 62.1 (#34), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14851251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions86.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%—
ProofBench26%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)36.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)16.7%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14851221
GPQA Diamond94.4%—
Humanity's Last Exam46.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.4%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.9 (#69), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1296—
Blueprint-Bench 226.5%—
Furniture Assembly26.7%—
LMArena Document1444—

Multilingual Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.0 (#12), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14771205
LMArena Chinese15291222
LMArena Russian14981228
LMArena French1487—
LMArena German1491—
LMArena Japanese1493—
LMArena Korean1455—
LMArena Spanish1479—

Instruction Following Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.0 (#32), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14661223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.4 (#18), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14831251
CL-bench20.8%—
CL-bench Life16.9%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.1 (#37), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14811230
LMArena Creative Writing14821174
LMArena Multi-Turn14881222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491—
EQ-Bench 41142—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 and $12.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper