Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 14B
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Facts
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 14B is cheaper and better at facts.
Scores updated · 26 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30Gemini 2.5 Pro3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Gemini 2.5 Pro3 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Gemini 2.5 Pro1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Gemini 2.5 Pro1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Gemini 2.5 Pro1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12Qwen3 14B2 of 3 tests
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3 14B costs 84% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Gemini 2.5 Pro pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+23.8points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+23.6points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+23.2points ahead
Where Qwen3 14B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+15.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 26 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Gemini 2.5 Pro by 23.628.54.9+23.6
- Terminal-Bench HardGemini 2.5 Pro by 22.726.53.8+22.7
- SciCodeGemini 2.5 Pro by 15.646.330.7+15.6
AgentsGemini 2.5 Pro
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGemini 2.5 Pro by 4.19.75.6+4.1
- GDPValtie00tie
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningGemini 2.5 Pro
- GPQA DiamondGemini 2.5 Pro by 23.283.660.4+23.2
- Humanity's Last ExamGemini 2.5 Pro by 13.5184.5+13.5
- CritPtGemini 2.5 Pro by 2.62.60+2.6
FactsQwen3 14B
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGemini 2.5 Pro by 23.83915.3+23.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3 14B by 15.19.124.2+15.1
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterQwen3 14B by 1.675.4+1.6
Following instructionsGemini 2.5 Pro
- IFBenchGemini 2.5 Pro by 8.248.740.5+8.2
Other results12 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGemini 2.5 Pro by 32.946.713.8+32.9
- AA-OmniscienceGemini 2.5 Pro by 32.6-16.4-49+32.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Gemini 2.5 Pro by 19.654.134.5+19.6
- LiveCodeBenchGemini 2.5 Pro by 14.974.259.3+14.9
- AIME 2025Gemini 2.5 Pro by 12.68370.4+12.6
- AIME 2024Gemini 2.5 Pro by 8.39283.7+8.3
- AA IntelligenceGemini 2.5 Pro by 6.8158.2+6.8
- ZebraLogicGemini 2.5 Pro by 3.191.688.5+3.1
- MATH-500 (EM)Gemini 2.5 Pro by 298.896.8+2
- vectara_factual_consistencyQwen3 14B by 1.69394.6+1.6
- vectara_answer_ratetie99.199.9tie
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthtie106.4111.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3 14B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 14B wins facts, and costs 84% less.
Which is better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 14B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B costs $0.35 and $1.40. That makes Qwen3 14B about 84% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 26 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 14 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 12 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.