Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 32.5.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.10 / $0.40 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.039.9
Released2025-06-172026-07-15
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$0.13
Results tracked337

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
WeirdML35.2%—
LMArena Coding1373—
ALE-Bench325.9—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index133.94144.64
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
LMArena Hard Prompts1377—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
DTBench62.8%—
LMCA18.1%—

Math Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
Omni-MATH48%—
LMArena Math1373—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—
LMArena Expert1373—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1198—
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1369—
LMArena Chinese1404—
LMArena French1388—
LMArena German1389—
LMArena Japanese1359—
LMArena Korean1360—
LMArena Russian1373—
LMArena Spanish1396—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
IFEval81%—
LMArena Instruction Following1367—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—
LMArena Longer Query1373—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1379—
LMArena Creative Writing1367—
WildBench81.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1366—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite lists at $0.10 and $0.40.

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 Qwen3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper