Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Flash #130 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Flash; 43 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Gemini 2.5 Flash only
- 3
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 43
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 48.09. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 4.7.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash. Gemini 2.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Flash4.7 | Margin→ 85.9 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Agentic | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Gemini 2.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Flash221 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | Gemini 2.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Flash0.50 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Gemini 2.5 Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Flash1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Gemini 2.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 14.9% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.1% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -42.0% | -29.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.5% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.3% | 89.1% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 4.844% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 65.5% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1145 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 48.09.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 4.7. Gemini 2.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.