Compare / Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 22 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 or Gemini 2.5 Flash? The short answer
- Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 is cheaper: $0.30 against $0.85 per million tokens, 2.8 times less.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 13.1 against 12.0.
- On our business benchmarks, Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 ranks higher for agents and tool use and writing.
- On our business benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts.
At a glance
| Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 | Gemini 2.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.15 in · $0.75 out | $0.30 in · $2.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.30 | $0.85 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.15 (GMICloud, FP8) | $0.42 (Google AI Studio) |
| Intelligence Index | 12.0 | 13.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 49 of 161 | 74 of 161 |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 125 of 195 | 115 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 83 of 187 | 93 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 97 of 153 | 66 of 153 |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,431 | 1,437 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,432 | 1,399 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,378 | 1,394 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,448 | 1,424 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,414 | 1,400 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,422 | 1,409 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,396 | 1,402 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 12.0 | 13.1 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 75.3% | 79.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 11.1% | 12.1% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 46.1% | 50.3% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 33.9% | 65.3% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 15.2% | 13.6% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 33.3% | 31.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 81.7% | 93.7% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 23.9% | 41.3% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 45.4% | 36.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 52.1% | 56.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 93.8% | 75.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 90.3% | 88.1% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 78.7% | 78.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 54.0% | 62.0% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.
Quick answers
Is Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 better than Gemini 2.5 Flash?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 ranks higher for agents and tool use and writing; Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 costs $0.30 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Run Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 and Gemini 2.5 Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.