Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite Google

37.3

Rank #189 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 51.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.345.3
Released2025-02-052026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked3228

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.4 (#181), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding13221487
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
LiveBench Coding47.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 21.2 (#203), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13241459
DTBench52.5%88%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LiveBench Reasoning50.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38
ForecastBench57.1—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.8 (#192), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math13091453
ProofBench—16%
Omni-MATH37.4%—
LiveBench Math58.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.6 (#185), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert13051482
MMLU-Pro72%—
GPQA (HELM)50%—

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 30.6 (#103), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision11001270

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.2 (#156), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13231431
LMArena Chinese13391504
LMArena French13461468
LMArena German13061435
LMArena Japanese13021392
LMArena Korean13251389
LMArena Russian13281421
LMArena Spanish13131444

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.6 (#158), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13051436
LiveBench Instruction Following78.3%—
IFEval82.4%—

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#155), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query13211448

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.9 (#172), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text13301441
LMArena Creative Writing13191382
LMArena Multi-Turn13071443
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
WildBench79%—
LiveBench Language34.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.8 27B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper