Model Comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen2.5 Max
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Go Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
51.1 reasoning / $0.85/1M
Lowest Price
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
51.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
17.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) is 5.3x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen2.5 Max.
Reasoning gap
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Max by 13.9 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen2.5 Max
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen2.5 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $1.60/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.50/1M | $6.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.85/1M | $2.80/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | May 20, 2025 | Jan 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 196.9 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 498ms | — |
| Latency | 498ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 22.1 |
| Reasoning Score | 51.1 | 37.3 |
| Intelligence | 20.6 | 16.3 |
| Coding | 17.8 | — |
| Math | 60.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 68.3% | 58.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 80.9% | 76.2% |
| HLE | 5.1% | 4.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | 49.5% | 35.9% |
| MATH 500 | 93.2% | 83.5% |
| AIME 2025 | 60.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 50.0% | 23.3% |
| SciCode | 29.1% | 33.7% |
| LCR | 45.9% | — |
| IFBench | 39.0% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 14.9% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 12.1% | — |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 51.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) reaches a 17.8 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen2.5 Max
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
