Qwen3 Coder Next vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 51 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Coder Next
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.20
- Context262K
- 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 Qwen3 Coder Next (51). 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 · Qwen3 Coder Next $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Qwen3 Coder Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteQwen3 Coder Next: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3 Coder NextPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 Coder Next | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 66 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 51/100 | 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 | Qwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 133.9 |
| ECI rank | — | #118 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 11 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 | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 11 | 20 (best) |
| Released | Feb 3, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | 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 Coder Next$4.40
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 Coder Next or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Qwen3 Coder Next (51). 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, Qwen3 Coder Next or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.20 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 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 $0.45 for Qwen3 Coder Next (2.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Qwen3 Coder Next 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 262,144 for Qwen3 Coder Next. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 Coder Next up to 65,536, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 Coder Next 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?
Qwen3 Coder Next publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 Coder Next is the newest, released Feb 3, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 Coder Next Sep 2025, 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 GLM-4.6VThree-way comparison
- Qwen3 Coder Next vs GLM-4.6VZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Qwen3 Coder Next vs MiniMax-M2 HerMiniMax
- Qwen3 Coder Next vs Mercury 2Inception
- Qwen3 Coder Next vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
- 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
