Model Comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
vs. Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Google, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
44.9 reasoning / $0.88/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
62.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
45.0 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
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) is 5.0x cheaper on input tokens than Gemini 3.5 Flash (high).
Speed gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) generates about 2.2x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) leads Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) by 18.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) leads Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) by 11.6 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Al Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.50/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $9.00/1M | $2.60/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.38/1M | $0.88/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | |
| Release Date | May 19, 2026 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 201.0 tok/s | 91.5 tok/s |
| TTFT | 15590ms | 1432ms |
| Latency | 15590ms | 1432ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 36.3 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 62.8 | 44.9 |
| Intelligence | 55.3 | 37.2 |
| Coding | 45.0 | 33.4 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 92.2% | 84.2% |
| HLE | 41.0% | 13.2% |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 36.7% |
| LCR | 69.3% | 55.7% |
| IFBench | 76.3% | 46.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 95.3% | 87.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 40.9% | 31.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 62.8 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) reaches a 45.0 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 3.5 Flash (high)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
