Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 60.7 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 66K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | — |
| SciCode | 53.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 128.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 13.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 46.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | — |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.