Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus leads Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.0 to 10.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs 4.9x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 22 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Qwen3.6 PlusQwen
Coding
44.1
Overall
56.2
Output $/M
$1.95
22
vs boards won of 22 shared

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 Plus: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 4.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Shared results
22
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
8
Qwen3.6 Plus only
61
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 Plus 44.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 78.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 19.0% against Qwen3.6 Plus 97.7%, 78.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against Qwen3.6 Plus $1.95 per million output tokens, 4.9x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 Plus 1M.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 Flash LiteBarsQwen3.6 PlusTies
Coding02
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning04
Math01
Knowledge06
General06
All shared boards022
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1461Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured54.5Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)71.4%86.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured73.4%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured25.6%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured11.1%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)59.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%43.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
ALE-BenchNot measured670.1Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1467Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1462Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1454Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1463Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1472Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.427.0Qwen3.6 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index133.8147.3Qwen3.6 Plus
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured40.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.7%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured14.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured32.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom19.0%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,115Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)36.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond70.2%87.4%Qwen3.6 Plus
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)75.4%84.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)62.5%88.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%27.8%Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured88.4%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured14.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1448Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1454Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1455Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
AIME42.1%94.6%Qwen3.6 Plus
MGSM (Vals AI)89.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
AA Math Index53.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)53.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured93.3%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured38.2%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1449Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1448Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
MMLU Pro79.1%87.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.0%84.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.5%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)57.6%61.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%74.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.6%68.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
MedQA (Vals AI)88.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MedCode (Vals AI)34.2%36.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)75.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured44.1%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1439Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1442Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1437Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1430Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1243Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1233Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1211Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1228Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1202Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1236Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1161Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1113Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)30.8%44.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
MedScribe (Vals AI)75.8%77.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured51.5%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
IFBench49.9%75.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)55.7%78.3%Qwen3.6 Plus
DTBench62.8%81.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
LMCA18.1%33.1%Qwen3.6 Plus
CL-benchNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena TextNot measured1436Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1424Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1404Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1445Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1424Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1477Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1451Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1390Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1379Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1455Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1432Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1434Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1433Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1438Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1439Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1418Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1402Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 PlusLeader
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$0.0003Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.0013Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.0062Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.022Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.024Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.085Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Plus
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteQwen3.6 Plus
MakerGoogleQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 22, 2025April 2, 2026
Context window1.05M1M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.95
Coding indexNot benchmarked44.1
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.19
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than Qwen3.6 Plus for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 4.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.325 and $1.95. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 Plus only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 Plus comparison based on?

22 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 Plus's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next