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 2026-08-07.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) scores 30.7 points higher (52.0 vs 21.3) but costs 4.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1042 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) when you need intelligence above 21.3, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 21.3 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.0 | 21.3 | −59.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 59.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,042.43 | $250.18 | −76.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 76.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 30.47s | 5.28s | −82.7% Qwen3 Coder Next is 82.7% 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): 59.0% less intelligence, 76.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 82.7% 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 57.30 for $955.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
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