Qwen3 32B vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 53 on our weighted score.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 32B
53/100- ECI138.5
- Price$0.70 / $2.80
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
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 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityQwen3 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 32B 138.5 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceQwen3 32BQwen3 32B $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 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashQwen3 32B: Text · Gemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 32B | Gemini 2.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 64 | 59 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 35 | 90 |
| Context window | 13% | 24 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Qwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 138.5 (best) | 134.7 |
| ECI rank | #106 of 148 (best) | #116 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.9% | — |
| 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 | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen3-32b | — |
| API providers | 14 | — |
| Released | Apr 29, 2025 | Dec 11, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Jun 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 32B$12.60
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 32B or Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Qwen3 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Qwen3 32B 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 32B versus . Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 32B 138.5 (#106 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (135.1–140.4 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 Qwen3 32B and Gemini 2.0 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 32B 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 32B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 32B up to 16,384, Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 32B accepts text; Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 32B is the newest, released Apr 29, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 32B Apr 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 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
- Add DeepSeek-R1Three-way comparison
- Qwen3 32B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
- Qwen3 32B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- Qwen3 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Qwen3 32B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- 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
