Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 22
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.01 versus 57.25. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (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 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | Margin← 5.2 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 14.138%B 8.481%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 5.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 14.138%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.167%B 0.000%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 4.167%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 0.000%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 18.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
MathGemini 2.5 Pro wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 14.138% and 8.481%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 11.6 versus 6.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.