Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen Turbo
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 72 on our weighted score, though Qwen Turbo is 2× cheaper per token.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
85/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Turbo
72/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Qwen Turbo (72). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen Turbo 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 priceQwen TurboQwen Turbo $0.087 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen Turbo 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen Turbo: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 85/100 | 72/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle | Qwen TurboAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 133.9 | — |
| ECI rank | #118 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 41.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 6.1% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 | $0.087 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Google API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | gemini-2.5-flash-lite | qwen-turbo |
| API providers | 20 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Jun 17, 2025 | Nov 1, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2025 | Apr 2024 |
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
- Qwen Turbo$0.90
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen Turbo?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Qwen Turbo (72). It leads on inputs & features. Qwen Turbo 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 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.087 per million tokens for Qwen Turbo versus $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has an ECI of 133.9 and Qwen Turbo has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen Turbo yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both 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 1,000,000 for Qwen Turbo. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536, Qwen Turbo up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen Turbo accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen Turbo are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen Turbo came out Nov 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025, Qwen Turbo Apr 2024.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add Mistral Small 3.2Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT OSS 20BOpenAI · ECI 137.8
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- Qwen Turbo vs Gemma 3 12B ITGoogle · ECI 123.5
- Qwen Turbo vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
