Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 32B
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 75.7 to 68.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 55.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 40% for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | 40% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1358 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | 48.7% |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | 54.9% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 138.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1399 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Qwen3 32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1305 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1331 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3 32B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 32B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 32B share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.