Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
63
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
78
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Coding
+9.7 difference
Knowledge
+33.1 difference
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$1.25 / $10
N/A
117 t/s
N/A
21.19s
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 78 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 73.9 against 40.8. Gemini 2.5 Pro does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 78 to 63.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 40.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 54.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.