Head-to-head showdown: QwQ 32B (Reasoner) ($0.40 in / $1.20 out per 1M) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) ($1.50 in / $9.00 out per 1M). QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is 6.6× cheaper across standard token mixes, with 128K vs 1M context windows.
qwq-32b-preview · qwen
gemini-3.5-flash · google
Benchmark
| Workload Scenario | QwQ 32B (Reasoner) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) | Price Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1M input tokens (raw text) | $0.40 | $1.50 | −$1.10 |
| 1M output tokens (generation) | $1.20 | $9.00 | −$7.80 |
| 1M tokens · 70% input / 30% output mix | $0.64 | $3.75 | −$3.11 |
| Standard chat turn (4K in / 800 out, 50% cached) | $0.00184 | $0.0105 | −$0.00866 |
| Monthly scale (10K requests / day) | $552.00 | $3,150.00 | −$2,598.00 |
Negative difference = QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is cheaper. Positive = Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) is cheaper.
Scaling Curve
Total cost of a token volume at 70/30 input/output split (uncached). Log-log scale.
Verdict
QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is cheaper on both input and output rates, so it costs less at every input/output mix. Price alone still isn't the whole decision: capability, latency and context limits (QwQ 32B (Reasoner): 128K, Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter): 1M) may justify the premium for your task.
FAQ
On input, QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is cheaper ($0.40/M vs $1.50/M). On output, QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is cheaper ($1.20/M vs $9.00/M). The same model is cheaper on both sides, so it wins at every mix.
A chat-style request (4,000 input + 800 output tokens, 50% cached) costs $0.00184 on QwQ 32B (Reasoner) and $0.0105 on Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) — QwQ 32B (Reasoner) is 5.7× cheaper for that workload.
QwQ 32B (Reasoner) supports 128,000 tokens (32.8K max output); Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) supports 1,048,576 (65.5K max output). Gemini 3.5 Flash (OpenRouter) fits 8.2× more context, which matters for long documents and agents.