Gemini 3.5 vs Qwen 3
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Gemini 3.5 is meaningfully stronger at multimodal (90 vs 30 on our capability index).
- •Qwen 3 is open-weights (free to self-host); Gemini 3.5 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 (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) - better for whole-repo or long-document work.
Specs comparison
| Gemini 3.5 | Qwen 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google DeepMind | Alibaba (Qwen Team) |
| Type | Closed source | Open source |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) | ✓128K tokens (32K for 0.6B/1.7B/4B dense variants) |
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.50 | ✓Free (self-host) |
| Output / 1M tokens | $9.00 | Free (self-host) |
| Release date | 2026-05 | 2025-04 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 | Qwen 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (coding) | 76.2% | - |
| MCP Atlas (tool use) | 83.6% | - |
| CharXiv Reasoning (multimodal) | 84.2% | - |
| 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 3.5 if...
- →You need frontier agent/coding performance without frontier prices
- →Building autonomous agents that make many tool calls
- →High-throughput production workloads that were previously too costly on a Pro model
- →You want a strong default multimodal model with a 1M-token context window
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