ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Gemini 2.5 Pro

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65, Gemini 2.5 Pro 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

  2. Google

    Gemini 2.5 Pro

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    63/100
    • ECI145.3
    • Price$1.25 / $10.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Pro

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, Gemini 2.5 Pro 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 397B-A17BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 · Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 · Gemini 2.5 Pro $3.44 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 ProGemini 2.5 Pro 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Gemini 2.5 Pro: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3.5 397B-A17BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 397B-A17BGemini 2.5 Pro
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7472
Price25%4424
Inputs & features15%90100
Context window10%3761
Overall100%65/10063/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Gemini 2.5 Pro specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.7 (best)145.3
ECI rank#67 of 148 (best)#78 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.4% (best)85.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics31.2% (best)24.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics88.9% (best)84.7%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—57.6%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$1.25
Output$3.60 (best)$10.00
Cached input—$0.125
Blended (3:1)$1.35 (best)$3.44
Long-context rateSame rateOver 200K: $2.50 / $15.00
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioYesYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDqwen3.5-397b-a17bgemini-2.5-pro
API providers23 (best)22
ReleasedFeb 15, 2026Jun 17, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 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.

  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro$32.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, Gemini 2.5 Pro 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.35 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B versus $3.44 for Gemini 2.5 Pro (2.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148) and Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3 (#78 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (144.8–148.2 vs 143.6–146.9), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 86.4%, Gemini 2.5 Pro 85.3%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 31.2%, Gemini 2.5 Pro 24.6%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 88.9%, Gemini 2.5 Pro 84.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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 Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, Gemini 2.5 Pro up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Pro handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Pro is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the newest, released Feb 15, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons