Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 42.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 24.6% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 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 1M.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.042.5
Released2025-03-252026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.40
Results tracked7832

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-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev12271244
LMArena Coding14521412
ALE-Bench785.52221.8
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
SciCode42.8%—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2573.64462.69
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%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
Chess Puzzles20%21%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551403
DTBench82.4%82.9%
LMCA34.8%29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32143.98
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
CritPt2%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%84.4%
LMArena Math14501407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%0%
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond85.3%82.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%10.5%
LMArena Expert14521407
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

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

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14511385
LMArena Chinese15071446
LMArena French14721412
LMArena German14871390
LMArena Japanese14611368
LMArena Korean14341344
LMArena Russian14611379
LMArena Spanish14731400

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14371374
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14491392
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14581397
LMArena Creative Writing14541343
LMArena Multi-Turn14531393
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-Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 20× 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-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper