Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.1

Rank #119 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 38.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 42.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 35.6% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper at $0.40 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.042.1
Released2025-03-252026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$3.20
Results tracked7827

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev12271360
SciCode42.8%35.6%
LMArena Coding14521436
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
CritPt2%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551421
DTBench82.4%84.3%
LMCA34.8%32.2%
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—51.7%
ARC-AGI-141%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
Thematic Generalization—51.2%
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math14501432
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%—
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%11.2%
LMArena Expert14521432
GPQA Diamond85.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision12631245
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English14511400
LMArena Chinese15071462
LMArena French14721442
LMArena German14871426
LMArena Japanese14611367
LMArena Korean14341352
LMArena Russian14611400
LMArena Spanish14731424

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following14371399
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query14491410
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text14581417
LMArena Creative Writing14541368
LMArena Multi-Turn14531416
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper