ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs QwQ 32B

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 53 on our weighted score, though QwQ 32B is 12% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    68/100
    • ECI140.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 2.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.8 · QwQ 32B 137.6
  • Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.5 FlashQwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6762
Price25%5356
Inputs & features15%10035
Context window10%6124
Overall100%68/10053/100
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 QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.5 FlashGoogleQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)140.8 (best)137.6
ECI rank#97 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—65.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—59.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30 (best)$0.66
Output$2.50$1.00 (best)
Cached input$0.03—
Blended (3:1)$0.85$0.745 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDgemini-2.5-flash—
API providers22 (best)1
ReleasedJun 17, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Apr 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 2.5 Flash$8.00
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ 32B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ 32B?

QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.8 (#97 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.5–142.3 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; QwQ 32B accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

QwQ 32B publishes its weights 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. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025, QwQ 32B Apr 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