Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B leads Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.4 to 10.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs 6.8x less per output token ($0.40 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 6.8x cheaper ($0.40 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
- 16
- Qwen3.6 27B only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B leads, 21.4 against 10.4.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 18.5.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a GPQA Diamond result, 70.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a AIME result, 42.1%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a MMLU Pro result, 79.1%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.0003, Qwen3.6 27B $0.0018 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has the number, $1.30.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 75.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 19.0% against Qwen3.6 27B 94.2%, 75.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 6.8x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Bars | Qwen3.6 27B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 3 | ||
| General | 0 | 5 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 14 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 53.7 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 11.9% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 59.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 42.8% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.5% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.4 | 21.4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.8 | 146.2 | Qwen3.6 27B |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 18.5 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 19.0% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 36.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 70.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 75.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 62.5% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.8% | 23.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 85.9% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 7.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 42.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 89.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| AA Math Index | 53.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 53.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 91.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 35.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 79.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 57.6% | 62.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 66.2% | 71.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 57.6% | 68.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 88.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 34.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 75.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 30.8% | 45.6% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 75.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| IFBench | 49.9% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 55.7% | 77.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 78.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 34.5% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | July 22, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.45 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $2.70 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 36.8 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.30 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 6.8x cheaper ($0.40 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 27B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 27B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?
14 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.