Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 74 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
Of the 74 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite? The short answer
Pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 26). Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite if cost matters more: it costs 12 times less per product listing on CatalogBench. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is also faster.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 47, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 26 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (12 times less).
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.4 against 22.2.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite writes faster: 335 tokens a second against 37.
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) is newer: released 3 Aug 2026, against 21 Jul 2026 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for decks from an analysis and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for agents and tool use, professional work, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $0.30 in · $2.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.85 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $0.85 (Google) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.026 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.030 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 22.2 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 47 | 26 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | 335 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 (newer) | 21 Jul 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 3 of 21 measured | $0.0256 | $0.0020 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 14 · 17 of 21 measured | 28.6% | 17.9% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 15 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 3 of 20 measured | $0.15 | $0.0126 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 18 of 20 measured | 1,076 | 688 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 17 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 16 of 20 measured | 25.4 | 25.4 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 16 of 20 measured | 39.7 | 45.0 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 18 of 20 measured | 15.6 | 12.6 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 61 of 387 measured | 1,482 | 1,455 |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 22 · 63 of 163 measured | 1,472 | 1,447 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 16 · 63 of 380 measured | 1,484 | 1,452 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 14 · 92 of 243 measured | 45.4 | 22.2 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 15 · 90 of 231 measured | 92.8% | 83.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 24 · 114 of 242 measured | 43.1% | 18.8% |
| GDP.pdf reported by GDP.pdf · 1 result | ||
| Professional document tasks% of rubric, higher is better 13 · 29 of 32 measured | 23.2%xhigh reasoning | 10.0%high reasoning |
Show all 74 results (58 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 21 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 98.2% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 11 · 19 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 1.8% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 16 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 1.2% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 18 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 17 of 21 measured | 1.3% | 7.7% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 21 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 84.9% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 19 · 17 of 21 measured | 94.2% | 95.5% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 20 · 17 of 21 measured | 93.6% | 94.8% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 17 · 16 of 21 measured | 93.3% | 93.4% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 20 · 15 of 21 measured | 90.3% | 92.5% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 16 · 8 of 21 measured | 2.7% | 0.8% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 4 · 21 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 20.2% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 21 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 21.4% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 13 · 18 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 35.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 17 of 21 measured | 7.7% | 10.7% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 11 · 16 of 21 measured | 0.69 | 1.18 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 11 · 15 of 21 measured | 26.8% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 15 of 21 measured | 84.5% | 78.6% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 20 · 15 of 21 measured | 4.52 | 3.44 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 17 · 20 of 21 measured | 21.4% | 34.5% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 19 of 21 measured | 19.6% | 35.1% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 20 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 9.5% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 20 of 21 measured | 2.4% | 10.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 10 · 14 of 20 measured | 67.0% | 60.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 17 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 20 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 11 · 16 of 20 measured | 61.3% | 35.5% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 13 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 19 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 83.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 2 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 13 of 20 measured | 19.3 | 21.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 15 · 17 of 20 measured | $99,775 | $11,834 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 16 · 4 of 20 measured | $0.73 | $0.0390 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 18 · 1 of 20 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 6 of 20 measured | 54.8 | 54.9 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 15 · 17 of 20 measured | $0.09 | $0.01 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 52 of 385 measured | 1,468 | 1,436 |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 78 of 338 measured | 1,513 | 1,470 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 25 · 67 of 387 measured | 1,474 | 1,443 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 18 · 56 of 386 measured | 1,472 | 1,443 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 8 results | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 57 of 130 measured | 88.8% | 53.6% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 52 of 112 measured | 38.9% | 1.0% |
| τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 52 of 121 measured | 47.8% | 17.5% |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 10 · 59 of 131 measured | 76.2 | 49.3 |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 35 · 73 of 233 measured | 80.3% | 76.0% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 71 · 2 of 74 measured | 37.0 | 335 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 36 · 75 of 113 measured | 52.1% | 41.3% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 74 · 43 of 74 measured | 55.8 | 7.29 |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 47 against 26). Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite if cost matters more: it costs 12 times less per product listing on CatalogBench. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is also faster.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (12 times less).
Which is faster, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite writes about 335 tokens a second on its usual API, against 37 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902) (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite ranks 17 of 21 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 18 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 12 of 20 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 18 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 15 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 16 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 7 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 73 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.