Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen Plus
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 66.3 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | — |
| SciCode | 53.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 24% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 13.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1328 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1303 |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen Plus?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen Plus share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.