Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash by Google AI against Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, context windows of 1.0M vs 131K, tested across 54 shared challenges.
Our Verdict
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is 13x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Input
$1.50
Output
$7.50
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.11
14× cheaper
Output
$0.60
13× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 14× input, 13× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
53%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 uses 12.8x more emoji
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
60%Vocabulary56%
19wSentence Length14w
0.13Hedging0.37
5.4Bold5.7
2.7Lists4.0
0.04Emoji0.54
0.99Headings0.70
0.07Transitions0.14
Based on 27 + 22 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
