# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 26

## Summary

- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 32.9 to 18.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 162 | 105 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | 462.69 |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.04 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1254 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1410 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1419 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 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 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.5 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.