Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

64.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #39

90% interval 54.1–75.2

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Qwen3.5 397B

Alibaba

57.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #82

90% interval 45.9–69.0

Decision reading

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 57.46, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

9 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
9
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
14
Qwen3.5 397B only
29
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
83.8
Qwen3.5 397B
79.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
77.2
Qwen3.5 397B
56.5
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.1
Qwen3.5 397B
66.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
40.2
Qwen3.5 397B
56.6
Weighted basis
1 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
74.7
Qwen3.5 397B
63.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
32.9
Qwen3.5 397B
90.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
84.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.006
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.102
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 57.46, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.168.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 57.46, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 18, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.