Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 83 to 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
83/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.905 / $1.00
- Context131K
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 83/100 against Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct (44). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 priceGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct $0.93 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: Text, Images
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 82 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 100 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 83/100 | 44/100 |
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 | Qwen2.5-VL 72B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.905 |
| Output | $0.40 (best) | $1.00 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 (best) | $0.93 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Google API | Median of 6 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | gemini-2.5-flash-lite | — |
| API providers | 24 (best) | 6 |
| Released | Jun 17, 2025 | Jan 26, 2025 |
| 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
- Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct$11.06
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct (44). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct costs $0.905 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite versus $0.93 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct (5.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct 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 131,072 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct accepts text and images. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct came out Jan 26, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Voxtral Small 24B 2507Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral AI
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3BBaidu
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Solar Pro 2Upstage
- Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct vs Aion-RP 1.0 (8B)Aion Labs
- Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct vs MiniMax M1 80KMiniMax
