Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 63× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 48.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 24.6% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 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 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 78 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | 23% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 63× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.
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 Qwen3.7 Flash share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.