Compare / Qwen3-32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen3-32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 23 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 23 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.
Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash? The short answer
Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 13.1 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 4.1 times less per token.
- Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $0.85 per million tokens, 4.1 times less.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 13.1 against 8.6.
- Qwen3-32B is newer: released 28 Apr 2025, against 17 Apr 2025 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-32B does better for sticking to the facts; Gemini 2.5 Flash for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-32B | Gemini 2.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.14 in · $0.40 out | $0.30 in · $2.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.21 | $0.85 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8) | $0.85 (Google) |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.030 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 8.6 | 13.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 28 Apr 2025 (newer) | 17 Apr 2025 |
| 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 the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3-32B | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 127 of 387 measured | 1,347 | 1,409 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 143 of 380 measured | 1,340 | 1,399 |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 102 of 385 measured | 1,304 | 1,394 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 189 · 142 of 244 measured | 8.6thinking reasoning | 13.1thinking reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 114 of 231 measured | 66.8%thinking reasoning | 79.0%thinking reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 169 · 139 of 243 measured | 7.4%thinking reasoning | 12.1%thinking reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results | ||
| Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 13 of 81 measured | 48.7%bfcl fc | 56.2%bfcl fc |
| Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 6 of 81 measured | 82.4%bfcl prompt | 93.7%bfcl fc |
| Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 13 of 81 measured | 26.7%bfcl fc | 41.3%bfcl fc |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results | ||
| Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 24 · 39 of 104 measured | 5.9% | 7.8% |
| Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 17 · 65 of 104 measured | 99.9% | 99.0% |
Show all 23 results (12 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-32B | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 131 of 338 measured | 1,398 | 1,424 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 125 of 387 measured | 1,331 | 1,399 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 104 of 386 measured | 1,308 | 1,402 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 105 of 195 measured | 36.3%thinking reasoning | 50.3%thinking reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 223 · 126 of 234 measured | 0.0%no reasoning | 65.3%thinking reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 116 of 190 measured | 3.0%thinking reasoning | 13.6%thinking reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 130 of 193 measured | 29.8%thinking reasoning | 31.6%thinking reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results | ||
| Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 28 of 81 measured | 47.9%bfcl fc | 36.3%bfcl fc |
| Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 49 of 81 measured | 93.8%bfcl fc | 75.0%bfcl fc |
| Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 19 of 81 measured | 90.3%bfcl prompt | 88.1%bfcl prompt |
| Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 23 of 81 measured | 82.0%bfcl fc | 78.2%bfcl prompt |
| Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 17 of 81 measured | 26.0%bfcl prompt | 62.0%bfcl prompt |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-32B better than Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 13.1 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 4.1 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $0.85 per million tokens, 4.1 times less.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks 79 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 115 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks 121 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 150 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash ranks 97 of 189 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 140 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Qwen3-32B ranks 23 of 153 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 68 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-32B.
Run Qwen3-32B 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.