Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen-VL
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen-VL side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen-VL live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen-VL: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
Qwen-VL is a large vision-language model released in August 2023 by the Qwen team at Alibaba Cloud. Built on the 7-billion-parameter Qwen language model with an added visual receptor based on Openclip ViT-bigG, the model accepts images, text, and bounding box coordinates as inputs, and can produce both text and bounding boxes as outputs. Qwen-VL processes images at 448×448 resolution, higher than the 224×224 input used by many contemporaneous vision-language models, which supports finer-grained visual recognition and text-heavy tasks such as OCR. This design supports a range of multimodal tasks in a single model, including image captioning, visual question answering, visual grounding, text recognition, and image-conditioned dialogue, with native support for English, Chinese, and multilingual conversation.
At release, Qwen-VL achieved competitive results against contemporaneous vision-language models across zero-shot captioning, general VQA, text-oriented VQA, and referring expression comprehension benchmarks. A chat-tuned variant, Qwen-VL-Chat, is optimized for interactive use with instruction-following and multi-turn conversation. The model is distributed under the Tongyi Qianwen License, a custom license from Alibaba Cloud with specific terms that should be reviewed prior to commercial use. Qwen-VL is the first generation of Alibaba's open multimodal series and precedes the later Qwen2-VL and Qwen2.5-VL releases.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen-VL Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen-VL |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Aug 2023 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 565 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
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