ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 54 and 53 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.0 Flash

    Released Dec 11, 2024

    65/100
    • ECI134.7
    • Price—
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.0 Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B

    Released Apr 28, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI139.4
    • Price$0.70 / $2.80
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 235B-A22B

  3. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    54/100
    • ECI133.5
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
01 — Verdict

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 Qwen3 235B-A22B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 235B-A22B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

  • CapabilityQwen3 235B-A22BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B 139.4 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3 235B-A22BQwen3 235B-A22B $1.23 · 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 · Qwen3 235B-A22B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 235B-A22B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.0 FlashQwen3 235B-A22BClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%596557
Inputs & features20%903560
Context window13%612432
Overall100%65/10053/10054/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.0 FlashGoogleQwen3 235B-A22BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)134.7139.4 (best)133.5
ECI rank#116 of 148#103 of 148 (best)#119 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—70.7% (best)55.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics——8.5%
Price per million tokens
Input—$0.70 (best)$3.00
Output—$2.80 (best)$15.00
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)—$1.23 (best)$6.00
Long-context rate—Same rateSame rate
Price source—Official Alibaba APIMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens200,000 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens16,384 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoYes
PDFsYesNoYes
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningNoYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenProprietary
API model ID—qwen3-235b-a22b—
API providers—7 (best)1
ReleasedDec 11, 2024Apr 28, 2025Oct 22, 2024
Knowledge cutoffJun 2024Apr 2025Apr 30, 2024
03 — Cost

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—
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B$12.60
  • Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen3 235B-A22B 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 235B-A22B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen3 235B-A22B or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.80 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 $1.23 per million tokens for Qwen3 235B-A22B versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (4.9× as much). Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B 139.4 (#103 of 148), Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (135.2–140.8 vs 124.3–136.7), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen3 235B-A22B and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 235B-A22B 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, Qwen3 235B-A22B up to 16,384, 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; Qwen3 235B-A22B 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?

Qwen3 235B-A22B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Qwen3 235B-A22B Apr 2025, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons