Gemini 3.0 FlashvsQwen3.5
Gemini 3.0 Flash | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 49.6% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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. | 78%Best | 76.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 58% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 52.5% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 62% | — |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 33.7%Best | 28.7% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 33.6% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.4%Best | 88.4% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.1%Best | 62.2% |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 42.6% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1204 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.3% | 80.8%Best |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 81.2%Best | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 0% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 67.2% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 22.1% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1437 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Dec 17 2025 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Gemini 3.0 Flash or Qwen3.5?
Gemini 3.0 Flash leads Qwen3.5 on 5 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Gemini 3.0 Flash shipped 61 days before Qwen3.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 3.0 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 78% vs Qwen3.5 at 76.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 33.7% vs Qwen3.5 at 28.7%. On GPQA Diamond, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 90.4% vs Qwen3.5 at 88.4%. On OSWorld-Verified, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 65.1% vs Qwen3.5 at 62.2%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.5 leads at 80.8% vs Gemini 3.0 Flash at 80.3%. On MMMU-Pro, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 81.2% vs Qwen3.5 at 79%.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Flash was released by Google on Dec 17 2025.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Gemini 3.0 Flash leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Gemini 3.0 Flash 78% vs Qwen3.5 76.4%.
Gemini 3.0 Flash leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Gemini 3.0 Flash 33.7% vs Qwen3.5 28.7%.
Gemini 3.0 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.