Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next costs 1.9x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($0.80 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3 Coder Next: 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 τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 8
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 7
- Qwen3 Coder Next only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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 Coder Next has a AA Intelligence Index result, 9.2.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.9.
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 Coder Next
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Qwen3 Coder Next $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder Next not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 48.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 31.3% against Qwen3 Coder Next 79.5%, 48.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Qwen3 Coder Next $0.80 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Coder Next | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 3 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 7 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 36.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| SciCode | 43.4% | 36.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 24.2% | 18.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| WeirdML | 52.2% | 34.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 9.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 0.9 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.3% | 79.5% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| DeepResearch Bench | 37.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.2% | 73.7% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.2% | 10.1% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 81.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 27.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| 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 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.2% | 35.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 74.3% | 47.0% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| DTBench | 76.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| LMCA | 35.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3 Coder Next | 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 Coder Next costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | February 4, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.12 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.80 |
| 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 Coder Next 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 τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.12 and $0.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3 Coder Next comparison based on?
8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 Coder Next's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.