Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.6 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
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 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 35B total, 3B active | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $1.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Phrase Grounding | ||
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 66 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 75.76% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.13s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 11 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 44.4%(4/9) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
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