ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 comes out ahead, 67 to 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.5
    • Price$0.53 / $0.70
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B
  2. 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

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

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 QwQ 32B (53). It leads on price, 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 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 133.8
  • Lowest priceGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Gemini 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 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17QwQ 32B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6157
Price25%5979
Inputs & features15%3590
Context window10%2561
Overall100%53/10067/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Google
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.5 (best)133.8
ECI rank#123 of 165 (best)#132 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.53$0.12 (best)
Output$0.70$0.48 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.573$0.21 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersMedian of 2 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoYes
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID——
API providers22
ReleasedMar 5, 2025Jun 17, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 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.

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

Which should you choose?

Which is better: 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 QwQ 32B (53). It leads on price, 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, QwQ 32B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 is cheaper at $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 $0.21 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17 versus $0.573 for QwQ 32B (2.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.5 (#123 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 130.1–136.1), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for 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. Both 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 QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: 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?

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?

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. 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