Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Updated October 21, 2026. 11 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has the edge where output tokens cost 1.1x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 262K tokens.
- Shared results
- 11
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
- 17
- Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite leads, 10.4 against 9.6.
Same board, both measured
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
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct has a Design Arena: websites result, 1087.
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 Coder 30B A3B Instruct $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 24.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 53.3% against Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct 29.0%, 24.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct $0.44 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct 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 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| Math | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 9 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 60.4% | Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct measured |
| SWE-bench Lite | Not measured | 49.7% | Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 59.3% | 40.3% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.5% | 15.2% | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.4 | 9.6 | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.8 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 19.0% | 34.5% | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | 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% | 51.6% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.8% | 3.8% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | 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 | 29.0 | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 53.3% | 29.0% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | 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 |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 57.6% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 57.6% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| 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% | 70.6% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1087 | Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1046 | Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1085 | Only Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 30.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 75.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| IFBench | 49.9% | 32.7% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 55.7% | 32.7% | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite |
| DTBench | 62.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LMCA | 18.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| 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 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | 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 Coder 30B A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | July 22, 2025 | July 31, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.11 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $0.44 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has the edge where output tokens cost 1.1x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 262K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct costs $0.11 and $0.44. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct comparison based on?
11 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 Coder 30B A3B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.