ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs Qwen3 32B vs Gemini 2.0 Flash

Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 54 and 53 on our weighted score.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    54/100
    • ECI133.5
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 32B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI138.5
    • Price$0.70 / $2.80
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 32B
  3. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.0 Flash

    Released Dec 11, 2024

    65/100
    • ECI134.7
    • Price—
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.0 Flash
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54) and 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 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3 32BQwen3 32B $1.23 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
  • Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 · Qwen3 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3 32B: Text · Gemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2Qwen3 32BGemini 2.0 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%576459
Inputs & features20%603590
Context window13%322461
Overall100%54/10053/10065/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs Qwen3 32B vs Gemini 2.0 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2AnthropicQwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)133.5138.5 (best)134.7
ECI rank#119 of 148#106 of 148 (best)#116 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions55.3%65.7% (best)—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics8.5%66.9% (best)—
Price per million tokens
Input$3.00$0.70 (best)—
Output$15.00$2.80 (best)—
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$6.00$1.23 (best)—
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate—
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Alibaba API—
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens16,384 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoYes
PDFsYesNoYes
AudioNoNoYes
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningNoYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenProprietary
API model ID—qwen3-32b—
API providers114 (best)—
ReleasedOct 22, 2024Apr 29, 2025Dec 11, 2024
Knowledge cutoffApr 30, 2024Apr 2025Jun 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.

  • Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
  • Qwen3 32B$12.60
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash—
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2, Qwen3 32B or Gemini 2.0 Flash?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54) and 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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2, 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). Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.23 per million tokens for Qwen3 32B versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (4.9× as much). 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), Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 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 Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2, 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. All three 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 200,000 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and 131,072 for Qwen3 32B. Maximum output per response: Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192, Qwen3 32B up to 16,384, Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs; 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; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and 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; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 2024, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons