Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Google

39.0

Rank #162 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.3 to 35.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 27.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 41.4% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.045.3
Released2025-04-172026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$2.50$1.49
Results tracked5428

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding14241487
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)28.7%—
Aider Polyglot55.1%—
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
WeirdML41.9%—
ALE-Bench661.88—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67), Qwen3.8 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
Terminal-Bench17.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard56.2%—
TheAgentCompany41.1%—
BALROG33.5%—
Vending-Bench 2548.84—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
CritPt1.1%5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts14221459
DTBench76.5%88%
LMCA27.5%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index143.04149.38
ARC-AGI-22.5%—
SimpleBench41.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark56.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-133.3%—
EnigmaEval2.7%—
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
ForecastBench60.6—

Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math14151453
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.1%—
ProofBench—16%
Omni-MATH38.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)4.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert14261482
Humanity's Last Exam12.1%—
MMLU-Pro63.9%—
Confabulations16.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.8%—
GPQA (HELM)39%—

Multimodal Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision12541270
GeoBench76%—
VPCT46.2%—
SpatialViz-Bench36.9%—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English14101431
LMArena Chinese14501504
LMArena French14331468
LMArena German14191435
LMArena Japanese14031392
LMArena Korean13851389
LMArena Russian14151421
LMArena Spanish14211444

Instruction Following Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14051436
IFEval89.8%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query14191448
Fiction.LiveBench77.8%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14171441
LMArena Creative Writing14001382
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11371671
LMArena Multi-Turn14081443
Short-Story Creative Writing76.5%—
WildBench81.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 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 Qwen3.8 27B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper