Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads 62.2% to 52.7%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 70.3% (#23 of 52) against 70.3% (#24 of 52) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0015 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 29.3s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 4, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 35B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $1.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | 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 | 70.3% | 70.3% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0015 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 29.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 57.5% | 55.9% |
| Counting | 52.7% | 62.2% |
| Identification | 84.4% | 81.3% |
| OCR | 87.4% | 83.2% |
| Data Extraction | 91.8% | 84.7% |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% | 54.3% |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% | – |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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.
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
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 70.3% (#23 of 52) against 70.3% (#24 of 52) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads with 62.2% against 52.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0015. 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 29.3s. 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.