Model Comparison
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Gemini 3.5 FlashWhich is better in 2026?
Gemini 3.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 2.5x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash — which is better?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (by Google) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Gemini 3.5 Flash is better at 3 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Toolathlon). Gemini 3.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is roughly 2.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Gemini 3.5 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Choose Qwen3.5-397B-A17B if…
- cost matters — it's about 2.5x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 3 shared benchmarks
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2026
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Gemini 3.5 Flash is better at 3 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Toolathlon).
Gemini 3.5 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 2.5x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash ($1.50/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 2.5x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash ($9.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Gemini 3.5 Flash is more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's 262,144 tokens. Gemini 3.5 Flash can generate longer responses up to 65,536 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Both Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and Gemini 3.5 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Gemini 3.5 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Gemini 3.5 Flash uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while Gemini 3.5 Flash was released on 2026-05-19.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is 3 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Feb 16, 2026
3 months ago
May 19, 2026
3 weeks ago
3mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 3.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-01-31, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Gemini 3.5 Flash's training data extends to 2026-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's cutoff date.
—
Jan 2026
Provider Availability
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. Gemini 3.5 Flash is available from Google.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash.