Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3.7 Flash

Google

68.49/100

Estimated · Public rank #24

90% interval 61.974.2

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Alibaba

38.33/100

Estimated · Public rank #200

90% interval 26.849.8

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

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
0
Gemini 3.7 Flash only
22
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3.7 Flash
69.7
Supported · #13/183
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
38.7
Estimated · #142/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
64.0
Supported · #12/152
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
62.7
Supported · #15/151
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
77.2
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
21.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not ranked
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not ranked
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
82.7
#9/48
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
41.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not ranked
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
35.2
#112/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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 3.7 Flash
$0.00262
Fits in one request
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.7 Flash
$0.04875
Fits in one request
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Gemini 3.7 Flash
$0.0675
Fits in one request
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

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

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 3.7 Flash

$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba model documentation

Provider availability

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Gemini App - Spark, Gemini Enterprise App, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Google Antigravity

Google DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash model card

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Reasoning

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.7 Flash

2026-08-13

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

2025-09-22

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.

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 evidence22 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Gemini 3.7 Flash14.9%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash77.5%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Gemini 3.7 Flash43.6%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Gemini 3.7 Flash65.3%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Gemini 3.7 Flash20.3%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash80.8%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 64K-128K

    Gemini 3.7 Flash97%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE-Verified

    Gemini 3.7 Flash53.6%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    Gemini 3.7 Flash82.1%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash87.1%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash43.5%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash93.9%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3.7 Flash90.1%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%
    Source
    Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct?

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct?

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.