Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- Gemma 4 12B
- 40.6
- Supported · #138/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 46.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 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
Gemma 4 12B is 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 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 12B 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
9 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
1 Shared
11 Gemma 4 12B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 9
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- Gemma 4 12B
- 47.9
- Estimated · #81/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- Gemma 4 12B
- 46.6
- Estimated · #97/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- Gemma 4 12B
- 26.1
- #44/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Gemma 4 12B
- 34.0
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 12B
- 57.6
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 12B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 12B
- 89.8
- #21/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 12B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | 40.6Supported · #138/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | 47.9Estimated · #81/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | 46.6Estimated · #97/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 76.1#16/48 | 26.1#44/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 34.0Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 57.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 89.8#21/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
MRCRv2
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 72.2%Gemma 4 12B: 43.4%Normalized gap 28.8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Gemma 4 12B source
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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemma 4 12B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemma 4 12B
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGemma 4 12B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGemma 4 12B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGemma 4 12B
text, image, audio, video
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemma 4 12B
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideGemma 4 12B
Open Weights · open weights
Google gemma-4-12B model cardReasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Gemma 4 12B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemma 4 12B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemma 4 12B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
Gemma 4 12B
2026-06-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Google as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 46.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows
Agentic
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B72.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B78.8%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B78.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B5.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B83.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Gemma 4 12B77.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 46.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 46.6 to 43.6. Gemma 4 12B is 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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 47.9 to 43.4. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 12B 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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 12B?
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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.