Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads 38.5 to 22.6.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.033.4
Released2025-06-172024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M33K
Max output66K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1
Results tracked3331

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: 38.5 (#173), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding13731276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
WeirdML35.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench325.9—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13771251
Epoch Capabilities Index133.94119.49
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
DTBench62.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA18.1%—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math13731251
Omni-MATH48%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13731221
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1198—
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English13691205
LMArena Chinese14041222
LMArena Russian13731228
LMArena French1388—
LMArena German1389—
LMArena Japanese1359—
LMArena Korean1360—
LMArena Spanish1396—

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13671223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
IFEval81%—

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query13731251
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text13791230
LMArena Creative Writing13671174
LMArena Multi-Turn13661222
WildBench81.8%—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper