Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

4 benchmarks

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite outperforms in 4 benchmarks (AIME 2025, Global-MMLU-Lite, GPQA, LiveCodeBench), while Gemma 3n E2B Instructed is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri May 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite specifies output context (65,536 tokens).

Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Google
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri May 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed support multimodal inputs.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, while Gemma 3n E2B Instructed uses a proprietary license.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

Open weights

Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite was released on 2025-06-17, while Gemma 3n E2B Instructed was released on 2025-06-26.

Gemma 3n E2B Instructed is 0 month newer than Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Jun 17, 2025

11 months ago

Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

Jun 26, 2025

10 months ago

1w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-01, while Gemma 3n E2B Instructed has a cutoff of 2024-06-01.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has more recent training data (up to 2025-01-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Gemma 3n E2B Instructed (2024-06-01).

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Jan 2025

7 mo newer
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

Jun 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Has open weights
Higher AIME 2025 score (49.8% vs 6.7%)
Higher Global-MMLU-Lite score (81.1% vs 59.0%)
Higher GPQA score (64.6% vs 24.8%)
Higher LiveCodeBench score (33.7% vs 13.2%)

No standout differentiators in the data we have for this pair.

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Google
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 3n E2B Instructed.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 3n E2B Instructed?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is made by Google and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite compare to Gemma 3n E2B Instructed in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores FACTS Grounding: 84.1%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 81.1%, MMMU: 72.9%, GPQA: 64.6%, Vibe-Eval: 51.3%. Gemma 3n E2B Instructed scores HumanEval: 66.5%, MMLU: 60.1%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 59.0%, MBPP: 56.6%, Global-MMLU: 55.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite supports 1.0M tokens and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed?

Key differences include licensing (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.