Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 54.5% to 33.7%.
Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#22 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.0050 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.1s vs 7.3s per sample).
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.0% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0050 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.11s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 33.7% $0.010 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0012 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 93.8% $0.0012 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 88.8% $0.0047 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0013 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 42.4% $0.0013 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% $0.011 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 2.5 Pro performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.0% (#22 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 54.5% against 33.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.0050. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.