Side-by-side comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Google
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2500
Output / 1M
$1.5000
Qwen
Qwen3.6 Flash
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1875
Output / 1M
$1.1250
| Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,576 | 1,000,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools, json_mode | vision, tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.2500 | 0.1875 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.5000 | 1.1250 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.2188 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 1M tokens for Qwen3.6 Flash. That means Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite can ingest about 1.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Qwen3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes from Google; Qwen3.6 Flash comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.