Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 54.2
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- 62.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public score estimate, 67.54 versus 65.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
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
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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.
4 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
1 Shared
23 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 4
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next only
- 23
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 63.4
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 72.2
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- 43.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- 90.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- 81.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 54.2 | 62.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads |
| Agentic | 63.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 72.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 43.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 90.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 81.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54.2%Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: 62.5%Normalized gap 8.3Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-LiteQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model cardCached-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-Flash-Next
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
2026-08-26
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-Flash-Next has the higher public score estimate, 67.54 versus 65.3, 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 evidence28 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next—Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.9%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next55.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next51.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.5%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.5%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next19.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next62.5%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next48.1%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceQwen3.8-Flash-Next—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next64.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next72.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next76.6%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next95.7%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public score estimate, 67.54 versus 65.3, 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-Flash-Next?
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
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-Flash-Next?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 26, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.