Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher public point estimate, 46.72 versus 43.54. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Google logo
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Google

46.72/100

Estimated · Public rank #107

Conditional range 37.0–56.4

Model B
Alibaba logo
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Alibaba

43.54/100

Estimated · Public rank #118

Conditional range 29.2–57.9

Shared results
3
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
8
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
39
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

23.6Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite31.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
26.7
Estimated · #97/124
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
29.2
Estimated · #90/124
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
23.6
Estimated · #109/149
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
31.8
Estimated · #89/149
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
46.9
Estimated · #89/181
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
42.9
Estimated · #105/181
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
75.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
42.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
66.4
#40/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
78.3
#58/128
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
44.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
58.4
#10/12
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 3 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.001
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.017
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.025
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

262K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

2026-03-03

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

2026-04-15

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher public point estimate, 46.72 versus 43.54. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher public point estimate, 46.72 versus 43.54. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 31.8 to 23.6. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 29.2 to 26.7. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence50 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B42.65%

    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite34.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B52.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenWebBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B1397
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B35.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B25.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B26.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B62.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B60.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite80.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite62.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B29.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • JevBench 1.4

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite14.26
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • JevBench 1.5

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite19.58
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78%
    Source

    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result

  • MMMU

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B75.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B58.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ODINW13

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B50.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B82.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite81.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite86.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B21.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite27.719%
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B20.351%

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads this result

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

50 public results · 3 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026