Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 1.5x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($1.00 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 2
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
- 6
- 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 18.2.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a AA Agentic Index result, 13.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Qwen3.6 35B A3B $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 64.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 31.3% against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 95.3%, 64.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 3.1 Flash Lite | Bars | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 3 | ||
| Math | 1 | 1 | ||
| General | 4 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 8 | 6 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 41.9 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| SciCode | 43.4% | 36.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 24.2% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 24.6% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| WeirdML | 52.2% | 34.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 18.2 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | 143.7 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 13.1 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.3% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| DeepResearch Bench | 37.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 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 index03
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.2% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.2% | 22.2% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 81.8% | 84.8% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 22.0% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | 86.7% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 27.7% | 20.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.2% | 64.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 74.3% | 71.7% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| DTBench | 76.8% | 73.9% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| LMCA | 35.0% | 29.7% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 44.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | 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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $1.00 |
| 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 3.1 Flash Lite better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B comparison based on?
14 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.