Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Flash live

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

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

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.

Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6-Flash is the production API variant of the Qwen3.6 model series, developed by the Qwen team at Alibaba Group. It is built on the Qwen3.6-35B-A3B architecture, which combines a hybrid linear attention mechanism with sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) routing to achieve high-throughput inference with reduced latency. The model is natively multimodal, processing both text and images within a unified early-fusion architecture, and supports 201 languages and dialects. It operates in a hybrid thinking mode, capable of generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before producing a final response, with the option to disable thinking for direct output. A Thinking Preservation feature allows reasoning context to be retained across multi-turn conversations, which is particularly useful for iterative agentic workflows.

The model is trained with reinforcement learning scaled across large-scale agent environments and covers a broad range of tasks including agentic coding, frontend development, visual understanding, document processing, and tool use. Compared to the open-weight Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, the Flash API variant extends the default context window to 1 million tokens and includes built-in production features such as native function calling and official tool integrations. The underlying architecture achieves near-100% multimodal training efficiency relative to text-only training, and the model demonstrates strong performance on agentic coding benchmarks including SWE-bench Verified.

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Flash Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters35B (3B active, MoE)
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.188
Output $/1M$10.00$1.13
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Object DetectionDemo
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 Time11.87s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens565
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