Side-by-side comparison
Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.3900
Output / 1M
$2.3400
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.3000
Output / 1M
$2.5000
| Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Gemini 2.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 1,048,576 |
| 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 → | 0.3900 | 0.3000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 2.3400 | 2.5000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
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, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
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 Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 397B A17B comes from Qwen; Gemini 2.5 Flash comes from Google. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.