Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Gemini 2.5 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 2.1x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Gemini 2.5 Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GPQA, SimpleQA), while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 1 benchmark (AIME 2025).

Gemini 2.5 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 1.5x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens) is 2.5x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 2.5 Flash is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Input tokens$0.30

Output tokens$2.50

Best providerGoogle

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input tokens$0.20

Output tokens$0.99

Best providerNovita

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 Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's 131,072 tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash can generate longer responses up to 65,536 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output65,536 tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input131,072 tokens

Output32,768 tokens

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.5 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking 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

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 4 months newer than Gemini 2.5 Flash.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

May 20, 2025

1.0 years ago

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

8 months ago

4mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking'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 VL 30B A3B Thinking's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Jan 2025

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from Google. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Google

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

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.29/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.99/1M

* 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)

Higher GPQA score (82.8% vs 74.4%)

Higher SimpleQA score (26.9% vs 23.9%)

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Has open weights

Higher AIME 2025 score (83.1% vs 72.0%)

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Gemini 2.5 Flash	Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemini 2.5 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash is made by Google and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemini 2.5 Flash compare to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking 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%. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 1.5x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30/M input and $2.50/M output via google. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.20/M input and $0.99/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K 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 Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.20/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is developed by Google and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.