Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.6 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.6 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) multimodal language model developed by the Qwen team at Alibaba Group. It carries 35 billion total parameters but activates only approximately 3 billion per forward pass via a learned routing mechanism, giving it the representational capacity of a large dense model at a fraction of the inference compute. The model is natively multimodal, processing images, documents, and video alongside text as a core architectural capability rather than an add-on. It supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible up to 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN. A key design feature is the unified thinking/non-thinking mode framework: users can switch between deliberate chain-of-thought reasoning and fast direct responses within a single model, and a "thinking preservation" option retains reasoning context across multi-turn agentic workflows to reduce redundant computation.

The model is specifically optimized for agentic coding tasks, including repository-level reasoning, frontend workflow generation, multi-step tool use, and MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration. On SWE-bench Verified it scores 73.4%, on Terminal-Bench 2.0 it scores 51.5%, and on MCPMark it scores 37.0%. For vision-language tasks it achieves 92.0 on RefCOCO, 89.9 on OmniDocBench 1.5, and 83.7 on VideoMMMU. The model also supports Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) for speculative decoding. All Qwen3.6 open-weight models are released under the Apache 2.0 license.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.6 35B A3B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters35B total, 3B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.140
Output $/1M$2.50$1.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Phrase Grounding
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
55.22%
Avg Response Time24.91s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens171
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0005
Defect Detection
60%(9/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
52.6%(10/19)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology