Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3-30B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 4 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 47.5 to 31.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 77.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 40.6% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 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 41K.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 41K |
| Max output | 66K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.9% | 29.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1416 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | 41.4% |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | 54.9% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1398 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 69.3% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 139.63 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 70.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 16.8% | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1396 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 70.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1433 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1370 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1363 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | 40.6% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1379 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1317 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1378 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3-30B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.