Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
Gemini 3 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 35B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $1.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | 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 | 74.63% | 79.1% |
| Avg Response Time | 9.85s | 20.94s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 290 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 93.3%(14/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
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