Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3B
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 30B A3B are closely matched at 21.9 and 17.6 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3 30B A3B is 5.7x cheaper per token.
Google · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 30B A3B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 21.9 and 17.6.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.5 Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3 30B A3B is roughly 5.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Gemini 2.5 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2025
Choose Qwen3 30B A3B
- cost matters — it's about 5.7x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
14 reported for Gemini 2.5 Flash · 8 for Qwen3 30B A3B
Gemini 2.5 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (AIME 2024, AIME 2025, GPQA), while Qwen3 30B A3B is better at 0 benchmarks.
Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than Qwen3 30B A3B ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Qwen3 30B A3B ($0.30/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Gemini 2.5 Flash is more expensive than Qwen3 30B A3B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3 30B A3B's 128,000 tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3 30B A3B 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
Qwen3 30B A3B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemini 2.5 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 30B A3B uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Qwen3 30B A3B was released on 2025-04-29.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 1 month newer than Qwen3 30B A3B.
May 20, 2025
1.3 years ago
3w newerApr 29, 2025
1.4 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Qwen3 30B A3B'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 Qwen3 30B A3B's cutoff date.
Jan 2025
—
Provider Availability
Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from Google. Qwen3 30B A3B is available from DeepInfra, Novita, Fireworks.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen3 30B A3B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 30B A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3B.