Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

36.4

Rank #208 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 9 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.3 to 38.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.445.3
Released2025-06-172026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.49
Results tracked3328

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#167), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding13731487
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
WeirdML35.2%—
ALE-Bench325.9—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 27.8 (#89), Qwen3.8 27B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 21.5 (#196), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13771459
DTBench62.8%88%
LMCA18.1%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index133.93149.38
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 35.5 (#144), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math13731453
ProofBench—16%
Omni-MATH48%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.1 (#206), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert13731482
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.6 (#109), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision11981270
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.5 (#129), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13691431
LMArena Chinese14041504
LMArena French13881468
LMArena German13901435
LMArena Japanese13591392
LMArena Korean13581389
LMArena Russian13731421
LMArena Spanish13961444

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.2 (#163), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13661436
IFEval81%—

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#257), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query13731448
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 57.0 (#130), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text13791441
LMArena Creative Writing13661382
LMArena Multi-Turn13671443
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
WildBench81.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 38.0 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 Qwen3.8 27B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper