Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads 64.2 to 41.6.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-07-21 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Max output | 66K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1453 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1440 | — |
| SciCode | 41.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 39% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 765.27 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 29.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 10% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1441 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.13 | 119.49 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 10.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 53.5% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 83.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 37.6% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1433 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 26% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 13% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1435 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1427 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1443 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | — |
| LMArena German | 1454 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1420 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1559 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.