Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 397B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 39 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 39
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if reasoning is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Qwen3.5 397B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 397B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 3.5 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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 12.3 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | Margin← 9.0 | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin← 6.9 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.5 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 ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 50.9%Winner: Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteΔ 3.3SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 50.9%. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 52.5%Winner: Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteΔ 1.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 52.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 962 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 19.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 23.1% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 50.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 48.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 42.0% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 33.7% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | -29.8% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 89.1% | Gemini 3.5 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
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.0% | 77.3% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 397B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 54.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 63.2. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5 397B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.4 versus 56.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.