Solar Pro 2 vs Gemma 3n E2B IT vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 84 to 26 and 21 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
UpstageSolar Pro 2
26/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context66K
GoogleGemma 3n E2B IT
21/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context33K
- Our pickGoogle
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
84/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Solar Pro 2 (26) and Gemma 3n E2B IT (21). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 · Solar Pro 2 $0.25 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemma 3n E2B IT unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Solar Pro 2 65,536 · Gemma 3n E2B IT 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteSolar Pro 2: Text · Gemma 3n E2B IT: Text, Images, Audio · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGemma 3n E2B ITPublishes downloadable weights (Gemma Terms of Use)
| Measure | Weight | Solar Pro 2 | Gemma 3n E2B IT | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 40% | 12 | 0 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 26/100 | 21/100 | 84/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Solar Pro 2Upstage | Gemma 3n E2B ITGoogle | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | — | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.25 (best) | — | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.25 | — | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Upstage API | — | Official Google API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · high | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenGemma Terms of Use | Proprietary |
| API model ID | solar-pro2 | — | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 2 | — | 24 (best) |
| Released | May 20, 2025 | Jun 26, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 2025 | Jun 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.
- Solar Pro 2$3.00
- Gemma 3n E2B IT—
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Solar Pro 2, Gemma 3n E2B IT or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Solar Pro 2 (26) and Gemma 3n E2B IT (21). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Solar Pro 2, Gemma 3n E2B IT 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). Solar Pro 2 costs $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). 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 $0.25 for Solar Pro 2 (1.4× as much). Gemma 3n E2B IT has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Solar Pro 2 has not been scored yet, Gemma 3n E2B IT has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Solar Pro 2, Gemma 3n E2B IT 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. Note that Gemma 3n E2B IT does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 65,536 for Solar Pro 2 and 32,768 for Gemma 3n E2B IT. Maximum output per response: Solar Pro 2 up to 8,192, Gemma 3n E2B IT up to 32,768, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Solar Pro 2 accepts text; Gemma 3n E2B IT accepts text, images and audio; 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?
Gemma 3n E2B IT publishes its weights (Gemma Terms of Use) and can be self-hosted; Solar Pro 2 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemma 3n E2B IT is the newest, released Jun 26, 2025. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025; Solar Pro 2 came out May 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Pro 2 Mar 2025, Gemma 3n E2B IT Jun 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 Nov 2, 2026.
