Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite Google

37.3

Rank #189 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.4

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multimodal, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.7 to 30.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and 82.4% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.341.4
Released2025-02-052026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked3228

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.4 (#181), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding13221427
LMArena WebDev—1357
WeirdML—39.5%
LiveBench Coding47.1%—
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 21.2 (#203), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13241414
DTBench52.5%82.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LiveBench Reasoning50.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA—34%
ForecastBench57.1—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.8 (#192), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13091428
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
Omni-MATH37.4%—
LiveBench Math58.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.6 (#185), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert13051428
MMLU-Pro72%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
GPQA (HELM)50%—

Multimodal Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 30.6 (#103), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision11001240

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.2 (#156), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13231390
LMArena Chinese13391478
LMArena French13461409
LMArena German13061393
LMArena Japanese13021345
LMArena Korean13251359
LMArena Russian13281389
LMArena Spanish13131408

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.6 (#158), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13051393
LiveBench Instruction Following78.3%—
IFEval82.4%—

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#155), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13211413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.9 (#172), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13301409
LMArena Creative Writing13191362
LMArena Multi-Turn13071410
WildBench79%—
LiveBench Language34.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 27B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper