Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | $1.56 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 71.64% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | 1.98s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 1.2K |
| Median output tokens | 6 | 7 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0002 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | 85.59% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | 8.51s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 126 |
| Median output tokens | 10 | 107 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0002 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | 84.8%(84/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology