Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 53 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 235B-A22B
53/100- ECI139.4
- Price$0.70 / $2.80
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against 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
- Lowest priceQwen3 235B-A22BQwen3 235B-A22B $1.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3 235B-A22B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 235B-A22B: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 59 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 53/100 |
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 | Qwen3 235B-A22BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | 139.4 (best) |
| ECI rank | #116 of 148 | #103 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 70.7% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $0.70 |
| Output | — | $2.80 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.23 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 16,384 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | qwen3-235b-a22b |
| API providers | — | 7 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Apr 2025 |
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
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against 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 or Qwen3 235B-A22B?
Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.23 per million tokens for Qwen3 235B-A22B versus . 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) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 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 and Qwen3 235B-A22B 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. Both 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 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 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. 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 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 235B-A22B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Qwen3 235B-A22B Apr 2025.
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
- Add Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic · ECI 133.5
- 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
- Qwen3 235B-A22B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
- Qwen3 235B-A22B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
