Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B leads Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite on coding, 74.2 to 49.0 on the Vibe Coding Index, at about the same output price ($2.55 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 73 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite Replace Qwen3.8 27B

Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle

Coding: 49.0
Overall: 49.8
Output $/M: $2.50

Qwen3.8 27BQwen

Coding: 74.2
Overall: 59.6
Output $/M: $2.55

vs boards won of 73 shared, 1 tied

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.8 27B: which to pick

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.0 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.

Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 1.0x cheaper ($2.50 vs $2.55 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.41 against $1.26).

Model AGemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle49.0/1003 independent benchmarks$0.41 per solved task Model BQwen3.8 27BQwen74.2/1004 independent benchmarks$1.26 per solved task

731212

Shared results: 73
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite only: 12
Qwen3.8 27B only: 12
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.

Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B scores 74.2 against 49.0.
3 and 4 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B leads, 33.7 against 22.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B leads, 45.8 against 14.3.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B leads, 88.9% against 83.8%.
Same board, both measured
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads, 85.8% against 84.3%.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.0015, Qwen3.8 27B $0.0017 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.41, Qwen3.8 27B $1.26.
Published attempt cost and pass rate

At a glance

Coding index: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 49.0 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B 74.2 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category: Agentic work, 18.8 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap: ARC-AGI: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 53.5% against Qwen3.8 27B 87.5%, 34.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $2.50 against Qwen3.8 27B $2.55 per million output tokens, 1.0x apart.
Context window: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.8 27B 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
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Ties
Coding	0	13	1 tie
Intelligence	0	2
Agentic work	0	6
Reasoning	0	11
Math	0	3
Knowledge	6	3
General	11	17
All shared boards	17	55	1 tie

CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index013

Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
LiveBench coding	Not measured	86.8%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev	1435	1593	Qwen3.8 27B
AA Coding Index	49.3	68.1	Qwen3.8 27B
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)	79.0%	84.0%	Qwen3.8 27B
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)	75.0%	86.0%	Qwen3.8 27B
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)	37.2%	64.8%	Qwen3.8 27B
Code migration (Vals AI)	6.2%	14.2%	Qwen3.8 27B
ProgramBench (Vals AI)	0.0%	0.0%	Tie
IOI (Vals AI)	Not measured	39.1%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)	50.2%	58.4%	Qwen3.8 27B
SkillsBench (Vals AI)	Not measured	38.1%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)	59.1%	67.8%	Qwen3.8 27B
SciCode	41.3%	46.6%	Qwen3.8 27B
WeirdML	39.0%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
ALE-Bench	765.3	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: coding	1453	1483	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: software and IT	1451	1478	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: React	1408	1602	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: HTML	Not measured	1570	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image	1448	1577	Qwen3.8 27B
SciCode	6.2%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here

IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02

Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
AA Intelligence Index	22.2	33.7	Qwen3.8 27B
Epoch Capabilities Index	144.9	151.7	Qwen3.8 27B

Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06

Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
AA Agentic Index	14.3	45.8	Qwen3.8 27B
LiveBench research	Not measured	59.4%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench browser	Not measured	32.0%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench long agentic	Not measured	27.9%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)	47.4%	48.5%	Qwen3.8 27B
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)	7.2%	30.9%	Qwen3.8 27B
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)	13.9%	36.1%	Qwen3.8 27B
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)	43.2%	59.7%	Qwen3.8 27B
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)	Not measured	0.0%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
APEX-Agents	29.3%	47.5%	Qwen3.8 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here

ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011

Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
GPQA Diamond	83.8%	88.9%	Qwen3.8 27B
LiveBench reasoning	Not measured	80.0%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)	83.6%	83.9%	Qwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)	83.8%	90.5%	Qwen3.8 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)	18.8%	33.9%	Qwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)	83.3%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
ARC-AGI	53.5%	87.5%	Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-2	10.3%	42.4%	Qwen3.8 27B
Chess puzzles	21.0%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
Mystery game puzzles	19.0%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts	1441	1459	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: expert	1434	1479	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English	1440	1461	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: diagrams	1284	1285	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: homework	1291	1295	Qwen3.8 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here

MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03

Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
OTIS Mock AIME	71.1%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3	26.0%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
FrontierMath, tier 4	0.0%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
ProofBench	13.0%	16.0%	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: math	1434	1455	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: mathematical work	1433	1458	Qwen3.8 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here

KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index63

Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
MMLU Pro	85.8%	84.3%	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LegalBench (Vals AI)	84.1%	82.4%	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
CorpFin (Vals AI)	60.7%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)	72.6%	70.8%	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
MortgageTax (Vals AI)	68.7%	64.9%	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
MedCode (Vals AI)	43.5%	28.7%	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: science	1451	1467	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare	1438	1437	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: legal and government	1431	1447	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: business and finance	1423	1438	Qwen3.8 27B
FACTS Benchmark Suite	53.5%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here

Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared

Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
LiveBench design	Not measured	75.9%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here

GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1117

General benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B	Leader
LiveBench data analysis	Not measured	76.6%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)	51.8%	Not measured	Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured
SAGE (Vals AI)	47.3%	52.4%	Qwen3.8 27B
MedScribe (Vals AI)	70.9%	83.8%	Qwen3.8 27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)	76.0%	82.0%	Qwen3.8 27B
DTBench	83.5%	88.0%	Qwen3.8 27B
LMCA	37.6%	41.4%	Qwen3.8 27B
Surface Evolver Bench	Not measured	45.0%	Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text	1435	1440	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: instruction following	1419	1436	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: creative writing	1421	1383	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Vision	1269	1269	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: English	1438	1448	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: non-English	1427	1428	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Chinese	1468	1501	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: German	1454	1443	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: Japanese	1426	1387	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: Korean	1407	1384	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: French	1451	1465	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Spanish	1441	1449	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Russian	1443	1415	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: Polish	1437	1439	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: multi-turn	1445	1440	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: longer queries	1435	1448	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: writing and language	1428	1405	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: entertainment and media	1414	1393	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Vision: English	1269	1267	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Vision: Chinese	1311	1326	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: reading text	1280	1281	Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: humor	1287	1235	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
LMArena Vision: creative writing	1260	1237	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here

Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared

Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark	Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 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 3.5 Flash Lite$0.0015Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B$0.0017Fits in one request

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite$0.022Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B$0.029Fits in one request

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite$0.085Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B$0.111Fits in one request

Gemini 3.5 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 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.8 27B
Specification	Google Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite	Qwen3.8 27B
Maker	Google	Qwen
Weights	No public weights listed	Open weights
Released	July 21, 2026	August 14, 2026
Context window	1.05M	1M
Input $/Mtok	$0.30	$0.425
Output $/Mtok	$2.50	$2.55
Coding index	49.0	74.2
Independent measurements behind it	3	4
Cost per solved task	$0.41	$1.26
Source	OpenRouter listing	OpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than Qwen3.8 27B for coding?

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.0 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite. Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 1.0x cheaper ($2.50 vs $2.55 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.41 against $1.26).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.8 27B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.425 and $2.55. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs $0.41 and Qwen3.8 27B $1.26.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.8 27B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B comparison based on?

73 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 27B's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/gemini-3-5-flash-lite-vs-qwen3-8-27b" title="Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/gemini-3-5-flash-lite-vs-qwen3-8-27b">LLMBenchmark.ai, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B</a></p>

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.8 27B: which to pick

Which one for your work

Coding

Intelligence

Agentic work

Reasoning

Knowledge

Long documents

Everyday cost

Cost per solved task

At a glance

Benchmark by benchmark

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Agent loop

Specification differences

Questions

Compare next