ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3 30B A3B vs QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 comes out ahead, 67 to 57 and 53 on our weighted score.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 30B A3B

    Released Apr 28, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI136.2
    • Price$0.108 / $0.475
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 30B A3B

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.5
    • Price$0.53 / $0.70
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B
  3. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    67/100
    • ECI133.8
    • Price$0.12 / $0.48
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwQ 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.5 · Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 133.8
  • Lowest priceQwen3 30B A3BQwen3 30B A3B $0.20 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 $0.21 · QwQ 32B $0.573 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 1,048,576 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Qwen3 30B A3B: Text · QwQ 32B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwen3 30B A3B and QwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 30B A3BQwQ 32BGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%596157
Price25%805979
Inputs & features15%353590
Context window10%252561
Overall100%57/10053/10067/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 30B A3B vs QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Google
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)136.2137.5 (best)133.8
ECI rank#126 of 165#123 of 165 (best)#132 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions61.7%65.3% (best)—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics62.8% (best)59.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.108 (best)$0.53$0.12
Output$0.475 (best)$0.70$0.48
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$0.20 (best)$0.573$0.21
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 14 providersMedian of 2 providersMedian of 2 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output16,384 tokens8,192 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoYes
AudioNoNoYes
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenProprietary
API model ID———
API providers14 (best)22
ReleasedApr 28, 2025Mar 5, 2025Jun 17, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 2024Jan 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.

  • Qwen3 30B A3B$2.03
  • QwQ 32B$6.70
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17$2.16
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 30B A3B, QwQ 32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 30B A3B, QwQ 32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17?

Qwen3 30B A3B is cheaper at $0.108 input / $0.475 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 costs $0.12 input / $0.48 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers); QwQ 32B costs $0.53 input / $0.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Qwen3 30B A3B versus $0.21 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 (1× as much) and $0.573 for QwQ 32B (2.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.5 (#123 of 165), Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 (#126 of 165) and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 133.8 (#132 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.1–141.3 vs 130.8–138.5), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 30B A3B, QwQ 32B and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, QwQ 32B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 30B A3B and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384, QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text; QwQ 32B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 30B A3B and QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen3 30B A3B came out Apr 28, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons