Side-by-side comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.3000
Output / 1M
$2.5000
Qwen
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2600
Output / 1M
$2.6000
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,576 | 131,072 |
| 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 | 0.2600 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 2.5000 | 2.6000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.03 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 131k tokens for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking. That means Gemini 2.5 Flash can ingest about 8.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes from Google; Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 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.