Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 57.6 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 18.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 42.5% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 149.24 |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1465 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | — |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1438 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1457 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1456 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 38.5 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 Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.