Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8-27B leads on the public coding lane, 48.7 to 38.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8-27B
Updated September 28, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8-27B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 50.96, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 9
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 1
- Qwen3.8-27B only
- 24
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
Supported: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Estimated: Qwen3.8-27BHow 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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8-27B leads on the public agentic lane, 61.2 to 34.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: strongerLong 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
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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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.
38.4Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite48.7Qwen3.8-27B
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Qwen3.8-27B leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
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.
1 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
9 Shared
24 Qwen3.8-27B only
2 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.
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 10.3Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite:74%Qwen3.8-27B:84.3%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 7.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite:54.2%Qwen3.8-27B:61.7%LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 5.0Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite:79.0%Qwen3.8-27B:84.0%MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 1.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite:85.8%Qwen3.8-27B:84.3%
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 v5.7 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
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 34.3
- Supported · #63/111
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 61.2
- Supported · #16/111
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8-27B leads
Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 38.4
- Supported · #62/136
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 48.7
- Supported · #41/136
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8-27B leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 48.0
- Supported · #65/160
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 49.2
- Supported · #59/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8-27B leads · intervals overlap
Reasoning
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 62.2
- #20/27
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 78.7
- #8/27
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 77.5
- #17/50
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 80.9
- #11/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 83.2
- #45/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.8-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 34.3Supported · #63/111 | 61.2Supported · #16/111 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows | Qwen3.8-27B leads |
| Coding | 38.4Supported · #62/136 | 48.7Supported · #41/136 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows | Qwen3.8-27B leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 48.0Supported · #65/160 | 49.2Supported · #59/160 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows | Qwen3.8-27B leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 62.2#20/27 | 78.7#8/27 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 77.5#17/50 | 80.9#11/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 83.2#45/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | 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 v5.7) 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.
Supported evidence per lane · 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B 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
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B 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
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8-27B 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.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.8-27B
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationQwen3.8-27B
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 pricingQwen3.8-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-27B model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationQwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideQwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
Qwen3.8-27B
2026-08-05
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
- Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 50.96, 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.
Questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 50.96, 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 Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B leads the public coding lane, 48.7 to 38.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B leads the public agentic tasks lane, 61.2 to 34.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-27B?
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 Qwen3.8-27B?
Gemini 3.5 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 evidence34 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceQwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B58.4%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B33.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B64.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B61.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B84.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B86.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B42.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B42.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B82.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
MathVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B90.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B91.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B65.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%SourceQwen3.8-27B88.9%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%SourceQwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-27B79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
34 public results · 9 shared
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 28, 2026