Side-by-side comparison
Qwen3.5-27B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2500
Output / 1M
$1.5000
| Qwen3.5-27B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 1,048,576 |
| 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 → | 0.1950 | 0.2500 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.5600 | 1.5000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper than Qwen3.5-27B on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.0025 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, Qwen3.5-27B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 262k tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That means Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qwen3.5-27B and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Qwen3.5-27B comes from Qwen; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes from Google. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.