ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite comes out ahead, 70 to 66 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is 19% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

    Released Jul 21, 2026

    70/100
    • ECI145.1
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI142.5
    • Price$0.25 / $2.00
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is our pick

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Qwen3.5 35B-A3B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 3.5 Flash LiteCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 145.1 · Qwen3.5 35B-A3B 142.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 35B-A3BQwen3.5 35B-A3B $0.688 · Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.5 Flash LiteGemini 3.5 Flash Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 35B-A3B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.5 Flash LiteGemini 3.5 Flash Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3.5 35B-A3BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.5 Flash LiteQwen3.5 35B-A3B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7269
Price25%5358
Inputs & features15%10090
Context window10%6137
Overall100%70/10066/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogleQwen3.5 35B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)145.1 (best)142.5
ECI rank#79 of 148 (best)#88 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3%83.5% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics26.0%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics71.1% (best)70.0%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.25 (best)
Output$2.50$2.00 (best)
Cached input$0.03—
Blended (3:1)$0.85$0.688 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioYesYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · highYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDgemini-3.5-flash-liteqwen3.5-35b-a3b
API providers26 (best)18
ReleasedJul 21, 2026Feb 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMar 2026—
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 3.5 Flash Lite$8.00
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B$6.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Qwen3.5 35B-A3B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.688 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B versus $0.85 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 145.1 (#79 of 148) and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B 142.5 (#88 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (142.5–146.7 vs 140.2–144.8), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 35B-A3B 83.5%, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 83.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 71.1%, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B 70.0%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite up to 65,536, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B accepts text, images, audio and video. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the newest, released Jul 21, 2026. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B came out Feb 23, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite Mar 2026.

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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons