Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 3 categories and QwQ-32B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 33.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 47.2% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.039.8
Released2025-06-172024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3336

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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding13731333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
WeirdML35.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench325.9—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13771325
Epoch Capabilities Index133.94137.6
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench62.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA18.1%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Math13731359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
Omni-MATH48%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert13731324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1198—
VPCT30%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13691305
LMArena Chinese14041378
LMArena French13881336
LMArena German13891313
LMArena Japanese13591262
LMArena Korean13601279
LMArena Russian13731297
LMArena Spanish13961354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13671297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
IFEval81%—

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%83.3%
LMArena Longer Query13731308

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13791329
LMArena Creative Writing13671288
LMArena Multi-Turn13661314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
WildBench81.8%—
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and QwQ-32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper