ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.7 Plus 70, Gemini 3.5 Flash 69). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.7 Plus

    Released Jun 2, 2026

    70/100
    • ECI147.4
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.7 Plus

  2. Google

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Released May 19, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI154.5
    • Price$1.50 / $9.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.5 Flash

  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 a point (Qwen3.7 Plus 70/100, Gemini 3.5 Flash 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemini 3.5 Flash for raw capability and Qwen3.7 Plus on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 · Qwen3.7 Plus 147.4
  • Lowest priceQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.7 Plus $0.70 · Gemini 3.5 Flash $3.38 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3.7 Plus 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.5 FlashQwen3.7 Plus: Text, Images, Video · Gemini 3.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.7 PlusGemini 3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7584
Price25%5725
Inputs & features15%80100
Context window10%6061
Overall100%70/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Gemini 3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.7 PlusAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)147.4154.5 (best)
ECI rank#61 of 148#33 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions87.9%92.8% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics34.4%62.8% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics93.3%95.6% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—79.3%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—66.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$1.50
Output$1.60 (best)$9.00
Cached input$0.04 (best)$0.15
Blended (3:1)$0.70 (best)$3.38
Long-context rateOver 256K: $1.20 / $4.80Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output64,000 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYesminimal · low · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDqwen3.7-plusgemini-3.5-flash
API providers2532 (best)
ReleasedJun 2, 2026May 19, 2026
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Jan 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.

  • Qwen3.7 Plus$7.20
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash$33.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.7 Plus or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen3.7 Plus 70/100, Gemini 3.5 Flash 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Gemini 3.5 Flash for raw capability and Qwen3.7 Plus on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Plus or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $1.50 input / $9.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.70 per million tokens for Qwen3.7 Plus versus $3.38 for Gemini 3.5 Flash (4.8× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 (#33 of 148) and Qwen3.7 Plus 147.4 (#61 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (152.5–156.6 vs 145.7–148.9), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.5 Flash 92.8%, Qwen3.7 Plus 87.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 62.8%, Qwen3.7 Plus 34.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 95.6%, Qwen3.7 Plus 93.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.7 Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 3.5 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 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.7 Plus. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.7 Plus up to 64,000, Gemini 3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.7 Plus accepts text, images and video; Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Qwen3.7 Plus and Gemini 3.5 Flash are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the newest, released Jun 2, 2026. Gemini 3.5 Flash came out May 19, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.7 Plus Apr 2025, Gemini 3.5 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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons