Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 33.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 66.2% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 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 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| SciCode | 53.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | 20% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 13.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1407 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1374 |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 19× 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 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 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 34.2 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 Qwen3.5-Flash share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.