Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen VL Max
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen VL Max side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen VL Max 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 2.5 Pro vs Qwen VL Max: 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-Max is a proprietary vision-language model developed by Alibaba’s QwenLM team. Released on February 1, 2025, it is the flagship offering in the Qwen-VL family and sits above the VL-Plus tier in capability.
The model supports text and image inputs and provides a context window of up to 131,072 tokens (with a maximum input size of 129,024 tokens), according to Alibaba Cloud Model Studio. While the parameter count for VL-Max has not been publicly disclosed, the broader Qwen2.5-VL series includes open-weight models scaling up to 72B parameters.
Qwen-VL-Max is optimized for advanced multimodal applications such as document parsing, visual reasoning, multilingual analysis, and structured data extraction. Unlike the open Qwen2.5-VL variants, VL-Max is not available as open weights.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen VL Max Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen VL Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 131K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| 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% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| 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) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 323 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0036 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 78.8%(78/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 73.3%(22/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
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