whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

VS
Google

Gemini 2.5 Flash

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

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 49.5% higher on coding benchmarks. However, Gemini 2.5 Flash compensates by delivering 1.7x faster throughput. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, Gemini 2.5 Flash offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+)
49.5%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+17.7%)
86%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.5x cheaper
$0.56Input: $0.25 | Output: $1.50
Speed
128 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Benchmarks & Scores

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

Cost & Performance

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has a blended cost of $0.56/1M tokens, which is about 1.5x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash at $0.85/1M tokens.

Gemini 2.5 Flash is faster than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. Gemini 2.5 Flash generates 221 tokens per second (tps) compared to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B which generates 128 tokens per second.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is better for coding tasks. It scores 49.5% 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