Which model is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 46.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 180 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 91.7% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.30
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 1.9x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$2.50
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (81.2% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.030
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 1.9x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.30
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 1.5x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (66k out)
268k (66k out)
Gemini 2.5 Flash (3.9x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
110ms
280ms
Gemini 2.5 Flash (170ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
180 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+5 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
58%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+23.0% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
70.5%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+21.2% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
82%
88.4%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+6.4% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
89%
95.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+6.7% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
66.6 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+18.5 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.16/1M input tokens ($0.47/1M output) compared to $0.30/1M input ($2.50/1M output) for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 110ms TTFT (180 tok/s throughput) compared to 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
How do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Gemini 2.5 Flash scores 58% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Gemini 2.5 Flash scores 70.5% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 89% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) for cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 110ms TTFT, and $0.30/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
