Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Max

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8-Max
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,417.3196% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1414.86923843, 1419.74079237]; votes 122770; rank 1111,479.56100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-max; 95% CI [1473.34740586, 1485.77213629]; votes 13136; rank 12
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,235.7694% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1231.05290901, 1240.46508391]; votes 58968; rank 591,312.86100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-max; 95% CI [1304.57707433, 1321.13715544]; votes 7244; rank 6
ToneBench2026-08-14-10-task · overall_score · leader73.8389% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Flash · 4,339 output tokens / case83.35100% of row best · points · Qwen3.8 Max · 20,929 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark wins3 benchmark winsOverall lead

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

FieldAt a Glance
Google DeepMind · activeGemini 2.5 FlashVerified Aug 29, 2026
Qwen · activeQwen3.8-MaxVerified Aug 29, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8-Max
DeveloperGoogle DeepMindQwen
FamilyGemini 2 5Qwen3 8 Max
ModelGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8-Max
VersionGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3.8-Max
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoff2025-01-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, AudioText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,048,5761,000,000
Total parametersUnknown2,400,000,000,000
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessGoogle AI (Standard)Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision

13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Gemini 2.5 Flash Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$0.30
Output price$2.50
Serving providers1
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-2.5-flash

Qwen3.8-Max Capabilities

agentschatreasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Input price$1.65
Output price$4.951
Serving providers3
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.8-max

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vsfamily variantsimage, text, video
vsfamily variantsimage, text, video
vscross-developer peersimage, text, video
vsfamily variantstext
vsfamily variantstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vsfamily variantstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vsfamily variantstext

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Max FAQs

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.8-Max, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash is $0.30 and Qwen3.8-Max is $1.65 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 2.5 Flash is $2.50 and Qwen3.8-Max is $4.951 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1,048,576 and Qwen3.8-Max supports 1,000,000.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

Qwen3.8-Max leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 2.5 Flash is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8-Max is not marked open weight.

Can Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.8-Max understand images?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash is documented with image input; Qwen3.8-Max is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

Qwen3.8-Max has the larger sourced maximum output: Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 65,536 and Qwen3.8-Max supports 131,072 output tokens.

Do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3.8-Max support reasoning and tool use?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8-Max: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash has 1 sourced provider route; Qwen3.8-Max has 3, so Qwen3.8-Max has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-Max?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback