Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 235B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | $0.70 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $10.00 | $2.80 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.125 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.625Google AI Studio | $0.0482StreamLake |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Google AI Studio | $0.1931StreamLake |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 20% | 6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 59.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 18.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.4% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Mar 25 2025 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 ProvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 2.5 ProvsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 2.5 ProvsMistral Large 4Qwen3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads Qwen3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Qwen3 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.70 vs $1.25 per million input tokens, and $2.80 vs $10.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Gemini 2.5 Pro shipped 35 days before Qwen3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is closed, while Qwen3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads at 20% vs Qwen3 at 6%.