Side-by-side comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.3000
Output / 1M
$2.5000
Qwen
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.3900
Output / 1M
$2.3400
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,576 | 262,144 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools, json_mode | vision, tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.3000 | 0.3900 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 2.5000 | 2.3400 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.035 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 262k tokens for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. That means Gemini 2.5 Flash can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes from Google; Qwen3.5 397B A17B comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.