Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 1.0 Pro Google

27.3

Rank #332 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 37.4 to 9.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for Gemini 1.0 Pro and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Side by side

Gemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.342.5
Released2023-12-132026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked2432

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 32.2 (#275), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding11081412
LMArena WebDev—1244
ALE-Bench—221.8
HumanEval+55.5%—
MBPP+61.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 17.1 (#296), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11091403
DTBench45.9%82.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index117.04143.98
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
LMCA—29.1%

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 9.3 (#321), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%84.4%
LMArena Math11321407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
MATH Level 511.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.6 (#291), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond34%82.3%
LMArena Expert10591407
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
MMLU70%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.4 (#252), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English11381385
LMArena Chinese11241446
LMArena French11451412
LMArena German11251390
LMArena Japanese10231368
LMArena Russian11861379
LMArena Spanish11191400
LMArena Korean—1344

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.6 (#267), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11141374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#249), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query11321392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.0 (#264), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkGemini 1.0 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text11491397
LMArena Creative Writing11311343
LMArena Multi-Turn11391393

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 27.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper