Model comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Gemini 3.8 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.8 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.8 Flash Google

61.8

Rank #11 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 76.9 to 21.2.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.75 / $3.75 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
  • Gemini 3.8 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 3.8 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Gemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index61.833.4
Released2026-09-022024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M33K
Max output66K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.75$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$3.75$1
Results tracked5031

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 59.2 (#15), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding15101276
DeepSWE73.8%—
FrontierCode41.2%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
CursorBench39.6%—
LMArena WebDev1584—
FrontierSWE19.6%—
SciCode56.6%—
WeirdML84.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,270—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 41.8 (#21), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
APEX-Agents64.3%—
Remote Labor Index5.8%—
GDP.pdf23.4%—
Vending-Bench 25,094—

Reasoning Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 76.9 (#5), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15081251
Epoch Capabilities Index156.71119.49
ARC-AGI-289.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)97.4%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt18.3%—
Chess Puzzles61%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles47%—
DTBench95.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA52.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench76.9%—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 65.3 (#28), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math15281251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 422%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.9%—
ProofBench48%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 74.8 (#2), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15241221
GPQA Diamond95.4%—
Humanity's Last Exam44.5%—
SimpleQA Verified69.7%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 40.7 (#45), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1314—
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly31.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 58.0 (#5), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14911205
LMArena Chinese15541222
LMArena Russian15151228
LMArena French1498—
LMArena German1493—
LMArena Japanese1502—
LMArena Korean1459—
LMArena Spanish1485—

Instruction Following Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 78.0 (#13), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14901223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 46.3 (#24), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query15081251

Writing & Preference Gemini 3.8 Flash leads

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 72.2 (#15), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14991230
LMArena Creative Writing14921174
LMArena Multi-Turn15011222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1748—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.8 Flash better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Gemini 3.8 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.8 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.8 Flash lists at $0.75 and $3.75.

Is Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.8 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.8 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.8 Flash has 50 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper