The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B leads the LLM Stats Score 38.8 to 12.5. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is 8.5x cheaper per token.

Google · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 38.8 to 12.5, ranking #61 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is roughly 8.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

  • cost matters — it's about 8.5x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

Choose Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

  • overall performance matters — it scores 38.8 and ranks #61 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Google
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
12.5
#249
38.8
#61
Reasoning
12.6
#242
38.6
#59
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 2
2 of 2
Input price
$0.07 / M
$0.45 / M
Output price
$0.30 / M
$3.00 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Math
18.2#183
36.6#37
Vision
1.5#172
18.2#77
Long context
-1.9#114
26.0#12
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite · 38 for Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

2 shared

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMLU-Pro).

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite ($0.07/1M tokens) is 6.4x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.45/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite ($0.30/1M tokens) is 10.0x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerGoogle
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input tokens$0.45
Output tokens$3.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite was released on 2025-02-05, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 13 months newer than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

Feb 5, 2025

1.6 years ago

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

6 months ago

1.0yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

Jun 2024

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is available from Google. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from DeepInfra, Novita.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.45/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

Which is better, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B leads the LLM Stats Score 38.8 to 12.5. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is made by Google and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite compare to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores MATH: 86.8%, FACTS Grounding: 83.6%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 78.2%, MMLU-Pro: 71.6%, MMMU: 68.0%. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is 6.4x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite costs $0.07/M input and $0.30/M output via google. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.45/M input and $3.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (12.5 vs 38.8), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.07 vs $0.45/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is developed by Google and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons