Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max

Decision reading

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.76 versus 58.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Google

58.84/100

Supported · Public rank #72

90% interval 45.7–72.0

Model B

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

71.76/100

Supported · Public rank #11

90% interval 68.1–75.4

Updated September 15, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8 Max is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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 Max
Qwen3.8 Max leads on the public coding lane, 60.8 to 43.3, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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.

2 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only

8 Shared

52 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 8
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only: 2
Qwen3.8 Max only: 52
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 8

2 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.

Coding

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.3; Supported · #102/152
Qwen3.8 Max: 60.8; Supported · #20/152
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 12 public rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 52.1; Supported · #68/183
Qwen3.8 Max: 68.8; Supported · #17/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.2; Estimated · #99/153
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.3; Supported · #9/153
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 15 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 76.3; #16/48
Qwen3.8 Max: 87.4; #5/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 60.1; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.5; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: 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 Max: 90.7; #18/123
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite	Qwen3.8 Max	Basis	Reading
Coding	43.3Supported · #102/152	60.8Supported · #20/152	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 12 public rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge	52.1Supported · #68/183	68.8Supported · #17/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap
Agentic	43.2Estimated · #99/153	67.3Supported · #9/153	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 15 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	76.3#16/48	87.4#5/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	60.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows	86.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	90.7#18/123	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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%Qwen3.8 Max: 92.9%Normalized gap 20.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7%Normalized gap 13.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8 Max source
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 74%Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1%Normalized gap 12.1Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8 Max source
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 79.0%Qwen3.8 Max: 87.9%Normalized gap 8.9Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8 Max source
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 85.8%Qwen3.8 Max: 88.6%Normalized gap 2.8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max

Context window

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Google latest Gemini model guide

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

gemini-3.5-flash-lite

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

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 pricing

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

text, image, video, audio, pdf

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

text

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio

Google latest Gemini model guide

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

2026-07-21

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.76 versus 58.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 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 evidence62 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max87.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max85.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max15.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
LongBench v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max88.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.76 versus 58.84, 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 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max leads the public coding lane, 60.8 to 43.3, 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 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 67.3 to 43.2. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 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 Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 15, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Knowledge

Agentic

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.8 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max