Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 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 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | 462.69 |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
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 Qwen3.5-Flash share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.