Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 54 and 43 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
43/100- ECI129.0
- Price$1.40 / $5.60
- Context131K
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2
54/100- ECI133.5
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (43). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityGemini 2.0 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 129.0
- Lowest priceQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen2.5 72B Instruct $2.45 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwen2.5 72B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 59 | 52 | 57 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 90 | 25 | 60 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 43/100 | 54/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | Qwen2.5 72B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 (best) | 129.0 | 133.5 |
| ECI rank | #116 of 148 (best) | #128 of 148 | #119 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 49.2% | 55.3% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 8.1% | 8.5% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | $1.40 (best) | $3.00 |
| Output | — | $5.60 (best) | $15.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $2.45 (best) | $6.00 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official Alibaba API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No | Yes |
| Audio | Yes | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen2-5-72b-instruct | — |
| API providers | — | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 | Oct 22, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Apr 2024 | Apr 30, 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$25.20
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (43). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper at $1.40 input / $5.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.45 per million tokens for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (2.4× as much). Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemini 2.0 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148), Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 of 148) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 129.0 (#128 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (124.3–136.7 vs 129.2–137.5), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 2.0 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and 131,072 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct up to 8,192, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the newest, released Dec 11, 2024. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Apr 2024, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek · ECI 132.3
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Mistral Large 2.1Mistral AI · ECI 128.5
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs GPT-4oOpenAI · ECI 129.0
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
