Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 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.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 48.3% to 31.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0014 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster (2.7s vs 7.4s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $1.56 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.6% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0007 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 7.38s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 57.5% $0.0023 | 58.8% $0.0013 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0007 | 54.0% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0004 | 78.1% $0.0002 |
| OCR | 87.4% $0.0011 | 84.5% $0.0009 |
| Data Extraction | 90.7% $0.0004 | 78.3% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% $0.0012 | 31.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0042 | 61.6% $0.0065 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.
On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 48.3% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.0014. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 7.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.