For Developers/Models/Compare/Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen 3

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen 3

Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison

Quick take

  • Gemini 2.5 Pro is meaningfully stronger at multimodal (85 vs 30 on our capability index).
  • Qwen 3 is meaningfully stronger at cost efficiency (90 vs 70).
  • Qwen 3 is open-weights (free to self-host); Gemini 2.5 Pro is paid API only.
  • Qwen 3 has a 128K tokens (32K for 0.6B/1.7B/4B dense variants) context window vs 1,048,576 tokens (1M) input; up to 65K output - better for whole-repo or long-document work.

Specs comparison

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen 3
ProviderGoogle DeepMindAlibaba (Qwen Team)
TypeClosed sourceOpen source
Context window1,048,576 tokens (1M) input; up to 65K output128K tokens (32K for 0.6B/1.7B/4B dense variants)
Input / 1M tokens$1.25Free (self-host)
Output / 1M tokens$10.00Free (self-host)
Release date2025-062025-04

Benchmarks

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen 3
Context window1M tokens-
Pricing tier break200K tokens-
Qwen3-235B-A22B-235B total / 22B active
Qwen3-30B-A3B-30B total / 3B active

Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.

Which should you choose?

Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro if...

  • Complex reasoning, analysis, or STEM tasks that benefit from a thinking model
  • Processing very long inputs (long documents, large repos)
  • Multimodal tasks needing high quality
Full Gemini 2.5 Pro details →

Choose Qwen 3 if...

  • You need an open, self-hostable model with a permissive license
  • You want to toggle deep reasoning on or off per request
  • Multilingual applications
  • Efficient inference via MoE with few active parameters
Full Qwen 3 details →

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro with others