Gemini 3.6 FlashvsQwen3.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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. | 39% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 7.3% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 32.2% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 37.3% | — |
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. | — | 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 coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 53.5% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 49% | — |
ML engineering MLE-BenchCan the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | 63.9% | — |
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% |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
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. | — | 28.7% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 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. | 83%Best | 62.2% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1421 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1482 | — |
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. | 1533 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.5?
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads Qwen3.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (OSWorld-Verified). Qwen3.5 shipped 155 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On OSWorld-Verified, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads at 83% vs Qwen3.5 at 62.2%.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.6 Flash was released by Google on Jul 21 2026.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.6 FlashvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.5vsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.5vsMuse Spark 1.1Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.5Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5