Skip to main content

Model comparison

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

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.25/100
Margin
2.3pts
winning →
59.5/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (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 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) share 16 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 1 to Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning).

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
16
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
8
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) only
1
Comparable categories
0 / 8

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

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 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.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning). Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProΔQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro63.8MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not measured
KnowledgeGemini 2.5 Pro27.4MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not measured
MathGemini 2.5 Pro11.6MarginNo 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 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 outputQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3.6 outputQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/sQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Pro21.19 sQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Pro1MQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)128KGemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 7.1%19.9%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 54.1%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Gert LabsSource 42.01%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 8.3%23.1%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
GDPval-AASource 665962Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 15.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 63.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 0.40%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 33.3%48.2%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.8%42.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-LCRSource 66.0%65.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
CritPtSource 2.6%1.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
GPQASource 83%Not comparable
HLESource 18.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.8%33.7%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.4%89.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-HLESource 21.1%27.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -14.3%-29.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 39.0%31.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.4%89.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Math
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 14.138%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.9%77.3%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1199Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 48.7%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) today?

Gemini 2.5 Pro: $1.25 input / $10.00 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.