Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite by Google or Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) scores 11.5 points higher (33.7 vs 22.2) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1336 vs $366; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 22.2, and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite when 22.2 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 22.2 | 33.7 | +51.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 51.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $365.63 | $1,336.09 | +265.4% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 3.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 9.09s | 59.76s | +557.4% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 557.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $2.50 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 51.8% more intelligence, 265.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 557.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash-lite/qwen3-8-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash-lite/qwen3-8-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill