Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 40.8 to 18.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 41.2% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 63% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | 4,254 |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | 63% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.04 | 149.27 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1476 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1254 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1410 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1437 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1457 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 35.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.