Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary Commercial ★ Pareto-Optimal FrontierDeveloped by Google · Ultra-Compact Distilled MoE · Modalities: Text, Vision, Audio · Released 2026-04-08
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 71.1/100Architectural & Production Profile
Google's lowest-cost 1M-token model engineered for massive-scale classification, entity extraction, and sub-80ms real-time edge inference.
High-frequency data pipelines, real-time routing, large-scale document tagging, and ultra-low-cost conversational assistants.
- Architecture
- Ultra-Compact Distilled MoE
- Modalities
- Text, Vision, Audio
- Max Output Tokens
- 32,768 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.131 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Gemini & Vertex AI → | Primary Host | $0.075 | $0.30 | 78ms | 265 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.07/1M in · $0.30/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.015/1M read · $0.07/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (36)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (772ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 265 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 93.8% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (40.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (302ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 265 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 84.2% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude Opus 5.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 98.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (53.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (602ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 265 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 93.2% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 70.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.50 for output tokens (3.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (27ms faster than Gemini 3.8 Flash) with 265 vs. 210 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 79.2% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (262ms faster than GPT-5) with 265 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 85.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6 Astra
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (133.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (662ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 265 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 96.0% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 94.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (17.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (442ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 265 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 90.1% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek R1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 86.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (7.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (1372ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 265 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 68.4% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 65.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.22 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.65 for output tokens (2.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (232ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 265 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 91.3% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs OpenAI o3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (1072ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 265 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 87.7% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude 4 Opus
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 99.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (200.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (842ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 265 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 87.1% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (40.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (462ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 265 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 78.5% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (342ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 265 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 82.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (402ms faster than Grok 4) with 265 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 86.2% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Llama 4 Maverick
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 62.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (57ms faster than Llama 4 Maverick) with 265 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 73.8% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 53.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 265 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 91.7% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs OpenAI o4-mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 93.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (14.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (602ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 265 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 81.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek V3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 46.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.14 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.28 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (332ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 265 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 68.4% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.36 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (37ms faster than Gemma 4 31B IT) with 265 vs. 155 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 71.2% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs OpenAI o3-mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 93.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (14.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (872ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 265 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 68.4% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 90.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (10.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (112ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 265 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 68.4% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (40.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (232ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 265 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 68.4% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 265 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 68.4% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (4.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (32ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Flash) with 265 vs. 180 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 70.5% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (622ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 265 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 74.0% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-5.3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 78.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (4.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (82ms faster than GLM-5.3) with 265 vs. 120 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 67.0% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (12ms faster than GLM-5.3-Flash) with 265 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 68.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4o
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than GPT-4o) with 265 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 68.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4o Mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (142ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 265 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 68.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (442ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 265 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 92.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 3
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (40.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (542ms faster than Grok 3) with 265 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 84.6% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 3 Mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.20 for output tokens (4.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (72ms faster than Grok 3 Mini) with 265 vs. 160 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 68.4% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.30 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (67ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 265 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 68.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (302ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 265 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 68.4% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs o1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 99.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (200.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (2522ms faster than o1) with 265 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 68.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 62.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (42ms faster than Qwen 3.8 27B) with 265 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 68.0% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.015 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 80%.
What are Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite achieves 55.4% on SWE-bench Verified, 91% on HumanEval coding, 68.4% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 80.1% on MMLU-Pro, and 90.2% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 81.5/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite supports a 1,048,576 token context window (32,768 max output tokens) and operates at 78ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 265 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
High-frequency data pipelines, real-time routing, large-scale document tagging, and ultra-low-cost conversational assistants.