Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 39 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 2
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 39
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 46. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.3 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 73.2% to 78%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 3.1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 78%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 4.8CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 27.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 1049 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 42.65% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.00% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 34.7% | 41.9% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 24.2% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.9% | 35.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -21.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 18.9% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 73.2% | 78% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 75.0% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | 64.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 46. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 78%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.