Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 15.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 57.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1412 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 63.2% | 82.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.