Compare / Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 14 results on 3 sources that measured both models.

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Alibaba · profile
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google · profile
Results compared
14
Shared sources
3

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 or Gemini 2.5 Flash? The short answer

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper: $0.85 against $0.97 per million tokens, 13% less.
  • They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (12.7 and 13.1).
  • On our business benchmarks, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge.
  • On our business benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks higher for agents and tool use, writing and sticking to the facts.

At a glance

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Gemini 2.5 Flash
Price per million tokens$0.30 in · $3.00 out$0.30 in · $2.50 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.97$0.85
Cheapest host, blended$0.75 (Alibaba)$0.42 (Google AI Studio)
Intelligence Index12.713.1
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens
WeightsOpenClosed
Developer based inChinathe 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 caseQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Gemini 2.5 Flash
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 134 of 161 74 of 161
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 113 of 195 115 of 195
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 120 of 187 93 of 187
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 93 of 153 66 of 153

Every shared result

BenchmarkMetricQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Gemini 2.5 Flash
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedBusiness, management and financeArena rating 1,4041,399
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedCreative writingArena rating 1,3701,394
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedExpert promptsArena rating 1,4661,424
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedInstruction followingArena rating 1,3851,400
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedOverallArena rating 1,4001,409
Arena (formerly LMArena)reportedWriting, literature and languageArena rating 1,3771,402
Artificial AnalysisreportedArtificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score 12.713.1
Artificial AnalysisreportedGPQA Diamond% of questions 79.0%79.0%
Artificial AnalysisreportedHumanity's Last Exam% of questions 15.9%12.1%
Artificial AnalysisreportedIFBench% of instructions 51.2%50.3%
Artificial AnalysisreportedLong-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions 72.0%65.3%
Artificial AnalysisreportedTerminal-Bench Hard% of tasks 13.6%13.6%
Artificial AnalysisreportedΤ²-bench telecom% of tasks 53.2%31.6%
Vending-Bench 2reportedMoney after a yearUS dollars $-11.34$548.84

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 Thinking 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 Thinking 2507 ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge; Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks higher for agents and tool use, writing and sticking to the facts.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.85 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $0.97 for Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507.

Run Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 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.