Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Qwen
Qwen

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

Gemini 2.0 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Better at math

Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Context Window
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Speed
Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemini 2.0 FlashQwen3.5 397B A17B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemini 2.0 FlashQwen3.5 397B A17B
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorGoogleQwen
ReleasedFeb 2025Feb 2026

Gemini 2.0 Flash Modalities

Input
textimagefileaudiovideo
Output
text

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.0 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Gemini 2.0 Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.40/M tokens.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Gemini 2.0 Flash's score of 13.6.
Gemini 2.0 Flash has a 1,048,576 token context window, while Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262,144 token context window.
Gemini 2.0 Flash supports vision. Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports vision.