Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs QwQ-32B
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 50% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 5% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | — |
| SciCode | 53.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 59 | 58.3 |
| 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% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1324 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than QwQ-32B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and QwQ-32B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.