Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5-27B (medium)

Qwen3.5-27B (medium) leads on average score with 7.4 vs 7.0. Qwen3.5-27B (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.981 vs $1.079. Gemini 3.5 Flash is faster at 9.93s vs 111.94s, with pass rates of 74.2% vs 72.7%.

Last updated at: 2026-07-28

Rank
#89
Total Output Tokens
117,518
Response Time (avg)
9.93s
Total Cost
$1.079
Rank
#67
Total Output Tokens
614,429
Response Time (avg)
111.94s
Total Cost
$0.981
Recommended model Gemini 3.5 Flash

Its score stays close to the best score here (7.0 vs 7.4), while responding about 11.3x faster than Qwen3.5-27B (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric Gemini 3.5 Flash Gemini 3.5 Flash none Release: 2026-05-19 Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 7.0 7.4
Rank #89 #67
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.9 8.2
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 74.2% 72.7%
Flaky tests 3 5
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 7.190 8.324
Total Cost $1.079 $0.981
Input Price $1.500 / 1M $0.195 / 1M
Output Price $9.000 / 1M $1.560 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 13,843 111,635
Output Tokens 117,518 15,999
Reasoning Tokens 0 598,430
Response Time (avg) 9.93s 111.94s
Response Time (max) 64.36s 1026.43s
Response Time (total) 178.68s 2462.67s

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#89 Gemini 3.5 Flash

none
Cost
$0.225
Time
125.5s
Tokens
25,004 tok

#67 Qwen3.5-27B

medium
Cost
$0.008
Time
62.0s
Tokens
3,099 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash 8.8 7.8 88.9% 1 34.69s 8,122 75,927 0
Qwen3.5-27B 6.2 7.1 55.6% 1 160.69s 7,895 6,381 89,388

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair