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 2026-07-17.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) scores 29.1 points higher (50.2 vs 21.1) but costs 4.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1041 vs $247; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) when you need intelligence above 21.1, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 21.1 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 50.2 | 21.1 | −58.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 58.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,040.88 | $247.26 | −76.2% Qwen3 Coder Next is 76.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 33.42s | 6.61s | −80.2% Qwen3 Coder Next is 80.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.50 / $9.00 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 58.0% less intelligence, 76.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 80.2% 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, GPT-5.6 Sol (high) scores 55.90 for $956.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) scores 45.60 for $240.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)Qwen3 Coder NextToday's Pareto 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