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
Model A
Gemini 3 Flash

Google

59.6/100

Supported · Public rank #59

90% interval 40.5–78.7

Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Qwen3.5 Plus

Alibaba

46.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #147

90% interval 32.8–60.7

Decision reading

Gemini 3 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 59.56 versus 46.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Qwen3.5 Plus

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

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Gemini 3 Flash

    Gemini 3 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Qwen3.5 Plus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Qwen3.5 Plus

    Qwen3.5 Plus 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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
4
Gemini 3 Flash only
3
Qwen3.5 Plus only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

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.

Math

Like-for-like
Gemini 3 Flash
27.8
Qwen3.5 Plus
16.3
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Gemini 3 Flash leads

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 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.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 35.640%Qwen3.5 Plus: 21.034%Normalized gap 14.6Shared source
  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 4.167%Qwen3.5 Plus: 2.083%Normalized gap 2.1Shared source

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 Flash
$0.002
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus
$0.0016
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3 Flash
$0.034
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus
$0.0272
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 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 Flash
$0.05
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus
$0.112
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Gemini 3 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Qwen3.5 Plus 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.

Qwen3.5 Plus

1M

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 3 Flash

$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.5 Plus

Not published

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Flash

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.5 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 Plus

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3 Flash

2025-12-01

Qwen3.5 Plus

2026-03-04

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 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 59.56 versus 46.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.034 vs $0.0272. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.05 vs $0.112.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 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 evidence7 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3 Flash49.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Plus

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3 Flash56.63%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Plus

    Not directly comparable

  • Gemini 3 Flash11.4%
    Qwen3.5 Plus18.5%

    Qwen3.5 Plus leads this result

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash20.20%
    Qwen3.5 Plus15.74%

    Gemini 3 Flash leads this result

  • EEBench

    Gemini 3 Flash19.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Plus

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash35.640%
    Qwen3.5 Plus21.034%

    Gemini 3 Flash leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash4.167%
    Qwen3.5 Plus2.083%

    Gemini 3 Flash leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Gemini 3 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 59.56 versus 46.73, 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 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.002 on Gemini 3 Flash and $0.0016 on Qwen3.5 Plus; repository review costs $0.034 and $0.0272; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.05 and $0.112. Qwen3.5 Plus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.