Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 22.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 82.9% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Both cost about the same: $0.10 input and $0.40 output per million tokens.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 32 |
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-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | 221.8 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 143.98 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | — |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1393 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite lists at $0.10 and $0.40.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.