Qwen Turbo vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 72 on our weighted score, though Qwen Turbo is 2× cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Turbo
72/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context1M
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
85/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
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-LiteQwen Turbo: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Turbo | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 85/100 |
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 | Qwen TurboAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $0.05 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.20 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.087 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen-turbo | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 3 | 20 (best) |
| Released | Nov 1, 2024 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Turbo$0.90
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Turbo or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
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, Qwen Turbo or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
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. Qwen Turbo has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has an ECI of 133.9.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen Turbo and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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: Qwen Turbo up to 16,384, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Turbo accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Qwen Turbo and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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: Qwen Turbo Apr 2024, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemma 3 12B ITThree-way comparison
- Qwen Turbo vs Gemma 3 12B ITGoogle · ECI 123.5
- Qwen Turbo vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
- Qwen Turbo vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.6
- Qwen Turbo vs GLM-4.7-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)
- 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
