Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.6 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Flash in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 29.0 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 Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 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 | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 326.4 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | 35.2% |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 77.1% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 143.26 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| 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: 41.8 (#32), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen3.6 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.6 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 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 Qwen3.6 Flash share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.