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 2026-09-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) scores 22.9 points higher (33.0 vs 10.1) but costs 4.6× as much to run the benchmark ($2172 vs $476; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) when you need intelligence above 10.1, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 10.1 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.0 | 10.1 | −69.4% Qwen3 Coder Next is 69.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,172.43 | $476.03 | −78.1% Qwen3 Coder Next is 78.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 18.40s | 5.52s | −70.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 70.0% 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): 69.4% less intelligence, 78.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 70.0% 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, Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 48.20 for $2000.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
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