Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

48.09/100
Margin
11.4pts
winning →
59.5/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Flash #130 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) #56 (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 (Reasoning) share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Flash; 5 to Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning).

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
12
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
3
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) only
5
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) is priced 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 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning).

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 scores and score margins for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
CategoryGemini 2.5 FlashΔQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
MathGemini 2.5 Flash4.7MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Flash$0.3 input / $2.5 outputQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3.6 outputGemini 2.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Flash221 tok/sQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Flash0.50 sQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Flash1MQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)128KGemini 2.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 14.9%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 19.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 15.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 962Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-SciCodeSource 29.1%42.0%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 48.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-LCRSource 45.9%65.7%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
CritPtSource 1.4%1.7%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.1%33.7%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 68.3%89.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-HLESource 5.1%27.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -42.0%-29.8%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.5%31.4%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.3%89.1%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Math
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 4.844%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 65.5%77.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1148Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 39.0%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) today?

Gemini 2.5 Flash: $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning): $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.