# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder Next

> Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-qwen3-coder-next
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 2 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3 Coder Next leads 22.4 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 41.9% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3 Coder Next has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 34.3 |
| Rank | 170 | 232 |
| Context | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.12 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.9% | 34.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| SciCode | — | 32.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (35.8 vs 36.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.