Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 9B 72, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 71). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
72/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
71/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 71/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 9B for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.5 9BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 133.9
- Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · 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 · Qwen3.5 9B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 9BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 9B | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 65 | 58 |
| Price | 25% | 95 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 71/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.5 (best) | 133.9 |
| ECI rank | #101 of 148 (best) | #118 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 79.0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 61.7% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.113 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 15 | 20 (best) |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 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.
- Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen3.5 9B 72/100, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 71/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 9B for raw capability and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 9B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). 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 $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.5 9B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148) and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 133.9 (#118 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (136.5–141.3 vs 129.8–136.3), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 9B and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 9B 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 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 9B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; 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?
Qwen3.5 9B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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 GPT-5 NanoThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 9B vs GPT-5 NanoOpenAI · ECI 139.4
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle · ECI 141.9
- Qwen3.5 9B vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- 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
