Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) by Google or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) scores 23.4 points higher (32.6 vs 9.2) but costs 10× as much to run the benchmark ($4222 vs $405; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) when you need intelligence above 9.2, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 9.2 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 32.6 | 9.2 | −71.8% Qwen3 Coder Next is 71.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,222.12 | $405.10 | −90.4% Qwen3 Coder Next is 90.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.65s | 6.44s | −61.3% Qwen3 Coder Next is 61.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.50 / $9.00 | $0.31 / $1.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (High): 71.8% less intelligence, 90.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 61.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (High)Qwen3 Coder NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash/qwen3-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill