ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2 vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 64 and 51 on our weighted score, though Mistral Small 3.2 is 14% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    85/100
    • ECI133.9
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1.05M
  2. Mistral AI

    Mistral Small 3.2

    Released Jun 20, 2025

    64/100
    • ECI131.7
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context128K
  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 Coder Next

    Released Feb 3, 2026

    51/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $1.20
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Mistral Small 3.2 (64) and Qwen3 Coder Next (51). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mistral Small 3.2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceMistral Small 3.2Mistral Small 3.2 $0.15 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Qwen3 Coder Next $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen3 Coder Next 262,144 · Mistral Small 3.2 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Mistral Small 3.2: Text, Images · Qwen3 Coder Next: Text
  • Self-hostingMistral Small 3.2 and Qwen3 Coder NextPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteMistral Small 3.2Qwen3 Coder Next
Price50%868966
Inputs & features30%1005035
Context window20%612437
Overall100%85/10064/10051/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2 vs Qwen3 Coder Next specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogleMistral Small 3.2Mistral AIQwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)133.9 (best)131.7—
ECI rank#118 of 148 (best)#123 of 148—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—49.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—30.3%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.10 (best)$0.20
Output$0.40$0.30 (best)$1.20
Cached input$0.01——
Blended (3:1)$0.175$0.15 (best)$0.45
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Mistral APIMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)128,000 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)16,384 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDgemini-2.5-flash-litemistral-small-2506—
API providers20 (best)611
ReleasedJun 17, 2025Jun 20, 2025Feb 3, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Mar 2025Sep 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
  • Mistral Small 3.2$1.60
  • Qwen3 Coder Next$4.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Mistral Small 3.2 or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Mistral Small 3.2 (64) and Qwen3 Coder Next (51). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mistral Small 3.2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Mistral Small 3.2 or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Mistral Small 3.2 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price); Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.20 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Mistral Small 3.2 versus $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.2× as much) and $0.45 for Qwen3 Coder Next (3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has an ECI of 133.9, Mistral Small 3.2 has an ECI of 131.7 and Qwen3 Coder Next has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Mistral Small 3.2 and Qwen3 Coder Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3 Coder Next and 128,000 for Mistral Small 3.2. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536, Mistral Small 3.2 up to 16,384, Qwen3 Coder Next up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Mistral Small 3.2 accepts text and images; Qwen3 Coder Next accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Mistral Small 3.2 and Qwen3 Coder Next publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 Coder Next is the newest, released Feb 3, 2026. Mistral Small 3.2 came out Jun 20, 2025; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025, Mistral Small 3.2 Mar 2025, Qwen3 Coder Next Sep 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.