Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen1.5-32B

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

36.4

Rank #208 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.0 to 34.4.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.430.0
Released2025-06-172024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3321

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#167), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding13731155
WeirdML35.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench325.9—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 27.8 (#89), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 21.5 (#196), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13771131
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
DTBench62.8%—
LMCA18.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index133.93—

Math Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 35.5 (#144), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13731155
Omni-MATH48%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.1 (#206), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert13731126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.6 (#109), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1198—
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.5 (#129), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13691106
LMArena Chinese14041176
LMArena French13881100
LMArena German13901058
LMArena Japanese13591027
LMArena Korean13581007
LMArena Russian13731073
LMArena Spanish13961089

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.2 (#163), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13661116
IFEval81%—

Long Context Qwen1.5-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#257), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13731146
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 57.0 (#130), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13791137
LMArena Creative Writing13661083
LMArena Multi-Turn13671140
WildBench81.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper