Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 397B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 36 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 1
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 79.6 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 73.2% to 80.8%.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 2.4x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 6.4 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 80.8%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 7.6CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 80.8%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Qwen3.5 397B reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 19.9% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | 15.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 23.1% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 962 | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 46.76% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.00% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 34.7% | 48.2% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.9% | 42.0% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -29.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 31.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 89.1% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 73.2% | 80.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 80.8%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.