Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite Google

37.8

Rank #194 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 34.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and 92.3% for Qwen3.7 Max.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.851.5
Released2025-02-052026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked3233

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding13221498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
LiveBench Coding47.1%—
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13241483
DTBench52.5%92.3%
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LiveBench Reasoning50.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68
ForecastBench57.1—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math13091490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
Omni-MATH37.4%—
LiveBench Math58.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert13051488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
MMLU-Pro72%—
GPQA (HELM)50%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1100—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13231474
LMArena Chinese13391530
LMArena Russian13281484
LMArena French1347—
LMArena German1306—
LMArena Japanese1301—
LMArena Korean1325—
LMArena Spanish1313—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13051460
LiveBench Instruction Following78.3%—
IFEval82.4%—

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13201482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13301476
LMArena Creative Writing13191449
LMArena Multi-Turn13071481
WildBench79%—
EQ-Bench 4—1110
LiveBench Language34.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.7 Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper