Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 43.4.
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 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 131K.
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B specifications
Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.043.2
Released2025-03-252025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output66K33K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.80
Results tracked7818

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding14521439
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
LMArena WebDev1227—
SciCode42.8%—
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-VL 235B-A22B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
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 Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts14551428
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
CritPt2%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
DTBench82.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
LMCA34.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math14501426
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-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert14521442
GPQA Diamond85.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision12631247
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14511405
LMArena Chinese15071463
LMArena French14721452
LMArena German14871424
LMArena Japanese14611385
LMArena Korean14341394
LMArena Russian14611408
LMArena Spanish14731428

Instruction Following Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14371406
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query14491420
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14581420
LMArena Creative Writing14541366
LMArena Multi-Turn14531428
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-VL 235B-A22B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B costs 2.8× 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-VL 235B-A22B?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (42.4 vs 42.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper