Which model is better: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 53.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 265 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 91.7% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.07
$0.16
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 2.1x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.30
$0.47
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (36.2% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.015
$0.016
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 1.1x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.07
$0.20
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 2.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (33k out)
268k (66k out)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (3.9x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
78ms
280ms
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (202ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
265 tok/s
185 tok/s
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (+80 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
55.4%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+25.6% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
68.4%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+23.3% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
80.1%
88.4%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+8.3% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
90.2%
95.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+5.5% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
81.5 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+3.6 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.075/1M input tokens ($0.30/1M output) compared to $0.16/1M input ($0.47/1M output) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers faster first-token latency at 78ms TTFT (265 tok/s throughput) compared to 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
How do Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores 55.4% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores 68.4% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 90.2% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Google) for high-frequency data pipelines, real-time routing, large-scale document tagging, and ultra-low-cost conversational assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 78ms TTFT, and $0.07/1M input pricing ($0.015/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
