Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 54.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 45.4 to 24.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 27.5% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 63.3% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 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 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1674 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1502 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | 63.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | 23.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | 88.3% |
| CritPt | 13.1% | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1496 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | 38% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 92% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 156.41 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 100% |
| ProofBench | 31% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1499 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | 47.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1507 |
Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | 1314 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1492 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1479 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1489 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 54.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 49.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max share?
36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.