Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Gemini 2.5 Flash leads Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 15.5 to 12.7, and Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 1.4x less per output token ($2.50 vs $3.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 37 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
34.3
Output $/M
$2.50
24
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Qwen
Coding
No data
Overall
52.9
Output $/M
$3.50
13
vs boards won of 37 shared

Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($2.50 vs $3.50 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 128K tokens).

Shared results
37
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
36
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 only
9
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 6.0 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: data viz: Gemini 2.5 Flash 1060 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 950, 13.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash $2.50 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 $3.50 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 FlashBarsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Ties
Coding02
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning12
Math02
Knowledge13
Web design60
General144
All shared boards2413
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
SWE-bench Verified28.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured22.1Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench17.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
WeirdMLNot measured41.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: coding14231424Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: software and IT14251431Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Intelligence Index15.512.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index142.9Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.3Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
BALROG33.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Vending-Bench 2$549-$11Gemini 2.5 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)56.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
BrowseComp-Plus39.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured80.1%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
ARC-AGI33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
ARC-AGI-22.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
SimpleBench41.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured9.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221416Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert14261463Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14201432Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Vision: diagrams1245Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: homework1244Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark56.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Math Index73.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured86.7%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: math14111412Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: mathematical work14221435Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
MedCode (Vals AI)40.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured40.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: science14331433Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281456Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: legal and government14301415Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance14041413Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
FACTS Benchmark Suite47.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Design Arena: websites10741052Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: UI components1003942Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: game dev1004956Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: data viz1060950Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: 3D1020997Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: all code categories10581032Gemini 2.5 Flash
Design Arena: SVG1020Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index144
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
IFBench50.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
DTBench76.5%80.3%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMCA27.5%29.3%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured75.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text14171415Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following14051386Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing14001384Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision1235Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: English14181429Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: non-English14091397Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese14491481Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: German14171408Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese13961386Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Korean13851375Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: French1432Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish14221389Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian14151401Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish14131390Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn14081406Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries14191400Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language14051388Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13931370Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: English1239Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1284Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1237Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: humor1225Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1277Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1252Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1241Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.0015Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.0022Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.022Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.033Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.085Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.125Exceeds the context window

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 17, 2025July 25, 2025
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.45
Output $/Mtok$2.50$3.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved task$0.466Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($2.50 vs $3.50 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 128K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.45 and $3.50. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Gemini 2.5 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 comparison based on?

37 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next