# Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.6 Sol

> GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-flash-lite-vs-gpt-5-6-sol
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.6 Sol in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 74.8 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and 96% for GPT-5.6 Sol.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 37.8 | 65.0 |
| Rank | 194 | 7 |
| Context | — | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | — | $4 |
| Output $/M | — | $20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 72.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.5% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1618 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 32.2% |
| SciCode | — | 57.1% |
| GSO | — | 76.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 89.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 47.1% | — |
| MirrorCode | — | 20% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 2,177 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 51.4% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 27.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 46.9% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 36.2% |
| BALROG | — | 60% |
| GBAEval | — | 52.6% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1257 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,619 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1324 | 1484 |
| DTBench | 52.5% | 96% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 92.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 71.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 93.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 97.5% |
| CritPt | — | 32.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 64% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 37.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 44.8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 50.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 58% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LMCA | — | 59.2% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 93.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 161.66 |
| ForecastBench | 57.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 54.3% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1309 | 1474 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 82.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 83% |
| Omni-MATH | 37.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 58.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1305 | 1516 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 93.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 69.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | 72% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1100 | 1281 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1483 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1323 | 1452 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1339 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | 1347 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1306 | 1476 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1301 | 1471 |
| LMArena Korean | 1325 | 1442 |
| LMArena Russian | 1328 | 1468 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1313 | 1441 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | 1482 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 78.3% | — |
| IFEval | 82.4% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1320 | 1480 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1330 | 1457 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1448 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1307 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1972 |
| WildBench | 79% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1250 |
| LiveBench Language | 34.3% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.6 Sol better for coding?

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.6 Sol share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Sol has 65.