ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4.1 mini

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 60 and 53 on our weighted score, though GPT-4.1 mini is 18% cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B
  2. 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

  3. OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    60/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 mini
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against GPT-4.1 mini (60) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability and inputs & features. 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 · GPT-4.1 mini 135.0
  • Lowest priceGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-4.1 miniGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · GPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashQwQ 32B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-4.1 mini
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%626759
Price25%565357
Inputs & features15%3510070
Context window10%246161
Overall100%53/10068/10060/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4.1 mini specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogleGPT-4.1 miniOpenAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.6140.8 (best)135.0
ECI rank#109 of 148#97 of 148 (best)#115 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3%—65.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics——6.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2% (best)—44.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions——12.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66$0.30 (best)$0.40
Output$1.00 (best)$2.50$1.60
Cached input—$0.03 (best)$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.745$0.85$0.70 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Google APIOfficial OpenAI API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)1,047,576 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens65,536 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesYes
PDFsNoYesYes
AudioNoYesNo
VideoNoYesNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryProprietary
API model ID—gemini-2.5-flashgpt-4.1-mini
API providers12224 (best)
ReleasedMar 5, 2025Jun 17, 2025Apr 14, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Jan 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.

  • QwQ 32B$8.60
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: QwQ 32B, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-4.1 mini?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against GPT-4.1 mini (60) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-4.1 mini?

GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). QwQ 32B costs $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 $0.70 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 mini versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.1× as much) and $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (1.2× 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), QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148) and GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 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 QwQ 32B, Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-4.1 mini 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. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-4.1 mini have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,047,576 tokens), against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

QwQ 32B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs. 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 and GPT-4.1 mini is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. GPT-4.1 mini came out Apr 14, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025, GPT-4.1 mini 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