Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus leads Gemini 2.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 25.2 to 15.5, and Qwen3.7 Plus costs 2.0x less per output token ($1.28 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 54 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 2.5 Flash Replace Qwen3.7 Plus
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
15.5
Output $/M
$2.50
1
Qwen3.7 PlusQwen
Coding
33.2
Overall
25.2
Output $/M
$1.28
53
vs boards won of 54 shared

Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus: which to pick

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens) and work measured by SAGE (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AGemini 2.5 FlashGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmark$0.466 per solved taskModel BQwen3.7 PlusQwen33.2/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
54
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
15
Qwen3.7 Plus only
21
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, Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 61.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 2.5 Flash 31.6% against Qwen3.7 Plus 93.0%, 61.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash $2.50 against Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.7 Plus 1M.

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 FlashBarsQwen3.7 PlusTies
Coding03
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning07
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design07
General127
All shared boards153
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
SWE-bench Verified28.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured55.9Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured12.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured54.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
SciCodeNot measured46.1%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%47.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Terminal-Bench17.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
FrontierCodeNot measured10.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: coding14231473Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: software and IT14251473Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index15.525.2Qwen3.7 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index142.9147.0Qwen3.7 Plus
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured17.5Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured10.5%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured16.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%93.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0Not measured2.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
BALROG33.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Vending-Bench 2$549Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.0%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.1%35.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured87.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus 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 measured17.0%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: expert14261466Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14201460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: diagrams12451292Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: homework12441295Qwen3.7 Plus
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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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 measured93.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured34.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: math14111467Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: mathematical work14221470Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
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
LMArena Text: science14331464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: legal and government14301451Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: business and finance14041435Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websites10741269Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: UI components10051261Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: game dev10051262Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: data viz10601276Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: 3D10211239Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: all code categories10591269Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: SVG10201208Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1143Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index127
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)44.8%39.3%Gemini 2.5 Flash
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured53.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
IFBench50.3%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.3%73.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
DTBench76.5%84.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
LMCA27.5%37.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14171454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: instruction following14051439Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: creative writing14001438Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision12351278Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: English14181458Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: non-English14091445Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Chinese14491509Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: German14171471Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Japanese13961412Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Korean13851413Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: French14321472Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Spanish14221457Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Russian14151457Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Polish14131449Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: multi-turn14081459Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: longer queries14191454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: writing and language14051437Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13931422Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: English12391280Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: Chinese12841332Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: reading text12371288Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: humor12251261Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: captioning1277Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1252Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing12411258Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena DocumentNot measured1444Only Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.0010Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.022Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.020Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.085Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.077Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.7 Plus
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 17, 2025June 3, 2026
Context window1.05M1M
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.32
Output $/Mtok$2.50$1.28
Coding indexNot benchmarked33.2
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved task$0.466Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Qwen3.7 Plus for coding?

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens) and work measured by SAGE (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 and $1.28. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 2.5 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus comparison based on?

54 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.7 Plus's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next