Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Comparing Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens) is 27.8x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 2.5 Flash is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Tue May 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Input tokens$0.30

Output tokens$2.50

Best providerGoogle

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input tokens$0.09

Output tokens$0.09

Best providerLambda

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output65,536 tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input128,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Tue May 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

Gemini 2.5 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.5 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Gemini 2.5 Flash is 8 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

May 20, 2025

11 months ago

8mo newer

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.5 Flash's training data extends to 2025-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Jan 2025

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from Google. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Google

Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.50/1M

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Lambda

Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

Hyperbolic

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Fireworks

Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Gemini 2.5 Flash

View details

Google

Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)

Supports multimodal inputs

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Has open weights

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Gemini 2.5 Flash	Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct (Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemini 2.5 Flash compare to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores Global-MMLU-Lite: 88.4%, AIME 2024: 88.0%, FACTS Grounding: 85.3%, GPQA: 82.8%, MMMU: 79.7%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 3.3x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30/M input and $2.50/M output via google. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.09/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is developed by Google and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.