Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

44.9

Rank #67 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.7

Rank #118 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.7 to 42.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 70% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $2 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 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.941.7
Released2025-03-252026-02-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$10$2
Results tracked7828

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: 42.8 (#86), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.5 (#244)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev12271254
SciCode42.8%29.3%
LMArena Coding14521410
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: 29.1 (#81), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
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 (#85), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 23.9 (#158)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
CritPt2%0.6%
Chess Puzzles20%10%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551400
DTBench82.4%80%
LMCA34.8%29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32142.52
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 31.9 (#191), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 38.4 (#86)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%70%
LMArena Math14501404
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
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: 55.8 (#41), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.7 (#73)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond85.3%83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%10.5%
LMArena Expert14521408
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 44.5 (#16), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.2 (#122)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14521379
LMArena Chinese15071458
LMArena French14731412
LMArena German14871367
LMArena Japanese14621326
LMArena Korean14351354
LMArena Russian14601377
LMArena Spanish14731390

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 73.0 (#123)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14361379
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#122)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14491390
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 58.1 (#118)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text14581395
LMArena Creative Writing14531347
LMArena Multi-Turn14531391
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 35B-A3B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 5.0× 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 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 33.5 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 35B-A3B share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper