ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3B vs DeepSeek R1 0528

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 66 to 57 and 53 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 30B A3B is 4.3× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    66/100
    • ECI140.6
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 30B A3B

    Released Apr 28, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI136.2
    • Price$0.108 / $0.475
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 30B A3B

  3. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek R1 0528

    Released May 28, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI141.2
    • Price$0.512 / $2.19
    • Context164K
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek R1 0528
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 30B A3B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityDeepSeek R1 0528Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2 · Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 · Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3 30B A3BQwen3 30B A3B $0.20 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 · DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 30B A3B: Text · DeepSeek R1 0528: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 30B A3B and DeepSeek R1 0528Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 30B A3BDeepSeek R1 0528
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%655966
Price25%518049
Inputs & features15%1003535
Context window10%612528
Overall100%66/10057/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3B vs DeepSeek R1 0528 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.5 FlashGoogleQwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen)DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)140.6136.2141.2 (best)
ECI rank#110 of 165#126 of 165#108 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—61.7%76.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—62.8%66.4% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.108 (best)$0.512
Output$2.50$0.475 (best)$2.19
Cached input$0.03——
Blended (3:1)$0.85$0.20 (best)$0.932
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIMedian of 14 providersMedian of 16 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens163,840 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)16,384 tokens32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpenMIT
API model IDgemini-2.5-flash——
API providers32 (best)1416
ReleasedJun 17, 2025Apr 28, 2025May 28, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025——
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 2.5 Flash$8.00
  • Qwen3 30B A3B$2.03
  • DeepSeek R1 0528$9.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen3 30B A3B or DeepSeek R1 0528?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 30B A3B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen3 30B A3B or DeepSeek R1 0528?

Qwen3 30B A3B is cheaper at $0.108 input / $0.475 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price); DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.512 input / $2.19 output per million tokens (median across 16 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Qwen3 30B A3B versus $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (4.3× as much) and $0.932 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (4.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

DeepSeek R1 0528 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2 (#108 of 165), Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 (#110 of 165) and Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 (#126 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (139.0–142.9 vs 138.4–142.1), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen3 30B A3B and DeepSeek R1 0528 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek R1 0528 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 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 163,840 for DeepSeek R1 0528 and 131,072 for Qwen3 30B A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384, DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text; DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 30B A3B and DeepSeek R1 0528 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. DeepSeek R1 0528 came out May 28, 2025; Qwen3 30B A3B came out Apr 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons