# Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-lite-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 32.9 to 21.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 82.9% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Both cost about the same: $0.10 input and $0.40 output per million tokens.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.4 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 208 | 105 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#167)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | 221.8 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 27.8 (#89)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 21.5 (#196)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.93 | 143.98 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 35.5 (#144)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.1 (#206)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.6 (#109)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | — |
| VPCT | 30% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.5 (#129)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1390 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.2 (#163)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1366 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#257)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 57.0 (#130)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1366 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1367 | 1393 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite lists at $0.10 and $0.40.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### 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 Qwen3.5-Flash share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.