Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview (low) vs Qwen3.5-27B

The average score is effectively tied at 6.5 vs 6.5. Qwen3.5-27B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.058 vs $0.646. Qwen3.5-27B is faster at 4.76s vs 16.70s, with pass rates of 59.1% vs 40.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-07-28

Rank
#117
Total Output Tokens
412,200
Response Time (avg)
16.70s
Total Cost
$0.646
Rank
#116
Total Output Tokens
24,321
Response Time (avg)
4.76s
Total Cost
$0.058
Recommended model Qwen3.5-27B

It has the best score here (6.5), while costing about 11.2x less than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview (low).

Detailed comparison

Metric Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview low Release: 2026-03-03 Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B none Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.5 6.5
Rank #117 #116
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 10.0 9.3
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 59.1% 40.9%
Flaky tests 0 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 4.969 0.763
Total Cost $0.646 $0.058
Input Price $0.250 / 1M $0.195 / 1M
Output Price $1.500 / 1M $1.560 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 110,185 102,316
Output Tokens 14,717 24,321
Reasoning Tokens 397,483 0
Response Time (avg) 16.70s 4.76s
Response Time (max) 309.35s 69.46s
Response Time (total) 367.47s 104.71s

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#117 Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

low
Cost
$0.002
Time
3.7s
Tokens
1,203 tok

#116 Qwen3.5-27B

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
42.9s
Tokens
4,273 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 Preview 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.39s 8,138 660 1,060
Qwen3.5-27B 5.8 10.0 33.3% 0 1.80s 7,913 415 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair