Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 3.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 35B-A3B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads 47.8 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 80% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $2 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 42.0 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 28 |
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), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1410 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1254 |
| SciCode | — | 29.3% |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1400 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 80% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 29.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 142.52 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 10% |
Math Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1404 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 70% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | — |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1457 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1376 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1392 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1379 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1389 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1395 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1346 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1390 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 3.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 35B-A3B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $2.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.