Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger all-rounder.Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video02Qwen3.6 Plus2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 20% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 Plus pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+40.7points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+30.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+24.9points ahead
Where Gemini 2.5 Flash pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 Plus
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 Plus by 30.313.643.9+30.3
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 Plus by 18.460.478.8+18.4
- SciCodeQwen3.6 Plus by 11.629.140.7+11.6
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 Plus by 15.712.127.8+15.7
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 Plus by 9.27988.2+9.2
- CritPtQwen3.6 Plus by 1.81.12.9+1.8
FactsQwen3.6 Plus
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 Plus by 40.724.765.4+40.7
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracytie25.926.4tie
Images and chartsQwen3.6 Plus
Following instructionsQwen3.6 Plus
- IFBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 24.950.375.2+24.9
Other results6 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 Plus by 66.131.697.7+66.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 Plus by 32.322.254.5+32.3
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.6 Plus by 30.7-29.80.9+30.7
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 Plus by 13.913.127+13.9
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.6 Plus by 10.218.829+10.2
- frontiermath_tier_4_v1Qwen3.6 Plus by 4.14.28.3+4.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Gemini 2.5 Flash wins none, but costs 20% less.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Gemini 2.5 Flash wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Gemini 2.5 Flash about 20% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 13 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.