Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen Turbo
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 9.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 38.1 to 14.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.04 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 6.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1254 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1410 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen Turbo?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 9.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen Turbo share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.