whatmodel.sh / Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (001)

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (001) is a closed-weights language model from Google, released February 2025. Licence: proprietary.

Catalogue identity notes

Comparison-only. Stable Gemini API version gemini-2.0-flash-lite-001; Gemini API deprecations page (observed 2026-10-09): release date February 25, 2025, shutdown date June 1, 2026 (so no current API). Distinct from the catalogued gemini-2-0-flash-lite-preview-02-05. Appears in several ledger sources' multi-model runs: BFCL v3 (2025-06-14, result folder gemini-2.0-flash-lite-001-FC), Galileo Agent Leaderboard v1, SpeakLeash CPTUB, EuroEval and Open Persian LLM Leaderboard.

Model information sources

Release date ↗

61.9±1.8comparison only: no current run option verifiedfrom 15 benchmark results across 6 sources

$ how it compares

The LLMs ranked either side of Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (001), out of 828 with a score, then more from Google.

#modelscorewhereRAMreleased
210GPT-5 nano OpenAI62±1api $0.14/M2025-08
211Qwen3-VL 32B Thinking Alibaba62±1api $0.28/M +local~22GB2025-10
212Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (001) Google62±2comparison only2025-02
213Mistral Large 3 (675B-A41B) Mistral62±1api $0.75/M +local~108GB2025-12
214Apriel 1.6 15B Thinker ServiceNow62±2local~10GB2025-11
more from Google
9Gemini 4 Argon (limited preview) Google82±1limited preview2026-09
23Gemini 3.8 Flash Google77±1api $1.50/M2026-09
32Gemini 3.7 Flash Google76±1api $1.50/M2026-08

see all LLMs · find the ones that fit your machine

$ what it's good at

agent tasks▁▁▂▆█▆▅▄▄▃▂▁ #255 of 340 * · 10% of its score · 2 tests

Beats o3-mini here, though they rank higher overall. Trails SmolLM3 3B, Jamba 1.5 Mini, LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
BFCL v356.2% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▃▅█▅▄▁▁ beats 63/114medium · avg 52%▇▇ 6.1%blunt · at its level
Galileo Agent Leaderboard v1 (tool selection quality)93.3% ✎▃▃▃▃▆▅▆▅█▂▅▂ beats 28/31easy · avg 79%▇ 3.6%blunt
other tests13 not in a task · 89% of its score
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
AHELM Speech Robust Bench (LibriSpeech-clean with noise) transcription WER4.9% ✎▂·█··▆▄·▂▂·▄ beats 12/13avg 33%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 28%typical
CPTUB average (SpeakLeash, 0-5 judge scale)81.9% ✎▁▂▂▂▃█▃▆▅▄▂▃ beats 85/95easy · avg 66%▇▇▇▇▇▇ 14%typical
Open Persian LLM Leaderboard v2 average (21 tasks)69.1% ✎▂▄▂▃█▄▃▆▃▅▂▂ beats 71/81medium · avg 58%▇▇▇▇ 11%blunt · at its level
AHELM VoxCeleb2 same-speaker detection (exact match)52.7% ✎▂·▂·▂█▂▄▄··▄ beats 4/13very hard · avg 54%▇▇▇ 8.3%sharp · noisy
AHELM CoRe-Bench conversational audio reasoning (pseudo-exact match)73.7% ✎▂·▄··▂▂·▄▂█▄ beats 8/13medium · avg 53%▇▇▇ 7.5%typical
AHELM LibriSpeech transcription by audio LLMs (WER)4.9% ✎▃···▃·█▃▅▃▅█ beats 10/13avg 11%▇▇ 5.8%blunt
AHELM MUStARD audio sarcasm detection (exact match)66.1% ✎▂·······▆█▆▆ beats 13/13very hard · avg 57%▇▇ 5.2%blunt
Open PT-LLM Leaderboard average (9 Portuguese tasks)80.6% ✎▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▅▁ beats 262/276medium · avg 73%▇▇ 4.4%noisy
5 more tests
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
AHELM AIR-Bench Foundation music subsets (exact match)64.1% ✎▃█▃▅▃·▃·▃▅▃▃ beats 8/13medium · avg 57%▇ 2.3%blunt · at its level
AHELM MELD audio emotion classification (pseudo-exact match)36.8% ✎▃··▃▃▃·▃▅▅█▅ beats 3/13medium · avg 40%▇ 1.5%blunt · at its level
AHELM FLEURS 7-language transcription by audio LLMs (WER)44.3% ✎▄▂···▂▆▂█▂·▂ beats 11/13avg 80%▇ 0.9%blunt · noisy
AHELM Multilingual LibriSpeech 7-language transcription by audio LLMs (WER)6.7% ✎▂▂▂··▂▂·▂▂█▆ beats 10/13avg 13%▇ 0.1%blunt · noisy
AHELM VocalSound human-sound recognition (prefix exact match)50.6% ✎██▄▄·█·█·█▄▄ beats 3/13easy · avg 67%▇ 0.0%blunt · at its level · noisy

$ where to run it

No verified API or download recorded yet · add one

$ how the score was worked out · AHELM: A Holistic Evaluation… 60%, SpeakLeash CPTUB (Complex Pol… 14%, Open Persian LLM Leaderboard… 11% and 3 more

Each result implies a score on its own, after adjusting for how hard its test is and who ran it. The score is their weighted average, with a small pull toward the middle for thinly tested models. Each test's weight is its counts column above; here it's added up by who ran the tests. How it works

$ improve this page

Use a short GitHub form or edit the data through a pull request. Every number needs a source; here's which ones we can use.

data updated · sources and licences · json