Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus'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 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 81.9% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1461 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1449 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 147.65 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| 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 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | — |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1425 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1439 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1438 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 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 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.