whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)

Qwen2.5-32B

VS
Google

Gemini 2.5 Flash

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Gemini 2.5 Flash is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 2.0% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: Qwen2.5-32B is 1.0x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, Qwen2.5-32B offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Gemini 2.5 Flash fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Qwen2.5-32B

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+)
2%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
49.5%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
N/AInput: N/A | Output: N/A
Speed
128 tps
Context Window
131.07k tokens
Model Specs

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/A
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+18.8%)
68.3%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.85Input: $0.30 | Output: $2.50
Speed1.7x faster
221 tps
Context WindowLarger
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

Pricing data is currently unavailable for one or both of these models, so a direct cost comparison cannot be determined.

Gemini 2.5 Flash is faster than Qwen2.5-32B. Gemini 2.5 Flash generates 221 tokens per second (tps) compared to Qwen2.5-32B which generates 128 tokens per second.

Qwen2.5-32B is better for coding tasks. It scores 2% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash which scores N/A.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard