Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 22.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 62.6% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 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 262K.
- Qwen3 Coder Next has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 34.3 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-02-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 3 |
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 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 53.1% | 32.3% |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | 34.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.1% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | — |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen3 Coder Next?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 12× 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 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 36.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen3 Coder Next share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.