Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

AI BENCHY Compare

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Summary

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (minimal) leads on average score with 6.1 vs 5.9. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.012 vs $0.013. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (minimal) is faster at 1.33s vs 3.37s, with pass rates of 54.0% vs 42.9%.

Recommended modelGemini 3.1 Flash Lite (minimal)It has the best score here (6.1), while responding about 2.5x faster than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Last updated at: 2026-07-14

Metric Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite minimal Release: 2026-05-08 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B Qwen3.5-35B-A3B none Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.1 5.9
Rank #116 #127
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.8 8.9
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 54.0% 42.9%
Flaky tests 3 3
Total Runs 63 63
Cost per result 0.130 0.230
Total Cost $0.013 $0.012
Input Price $0.250 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $1.500 / 1M $1.000 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 36,973 48,194
Output Tokens 2,487 4,343
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 1.33s 3.37s
Response Time (max) 4.49s 47.43s
Response Time (total) 27.91s 70.75s

Generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#116 Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

minimal
Cost
$0.001
Time
3.7s
Tokens
635 tok

#127 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

none
Cost
$0.005
Time
28.4s
Tokens
4,518 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 831ms 8,126 666 0
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.39s 7,808 571 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair