Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 Comparison

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 is better at 1 benchmark (SimpleQA).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Sat Mar 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 costs less

For input processing, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite ($0.25/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite ($1.50/1M tokens) is 1.9x more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ($0.80/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Mar 14 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Input tokens$0.25
Output tokens$1.50
Best providerGoogle
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.80
Best providerFireworks
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Google
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507
Input262,144 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Sat Mar 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 does not.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 uses Apache 2.0.

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

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite was released on 2026-03-03, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 was released on 2025-07-22.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 7 months newer than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Mar 3, 2026

1 weeks ago

7mo newer
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

Jul 22, 2025

7 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite's training data extends to 2025-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507's cutoff date.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Jan 2025

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

Provider Availability

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is available from Google. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 is available from Fireworks, Novita. The availability of providers can affect quality of the model and reliability.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.80/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.80/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher GPQA score (86.9% vs 77.5%)
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Higher SimpleQA score (54.3% vs 43.3%)

Detailed Comparison