Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 59.8% to 33.7%.

Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 57.6% (#38 of 61) against 59.7% (#33 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0051 per sample), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster (6.8s vs 7.3s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 11, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$0.150
Output $/1M$10.00$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
57.6%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0051$0.0004
Avg speed / sample6.83s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.7%
$0.010
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)–
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
52.7%
$0.0012
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
93.8%
$0.0012
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)–
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
65.2%
$0.0046
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
60.9%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
76.3%
Text localization
35.9%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
64.6%
$0.025
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
78.3%
Text localization
20.6%
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

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 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 2.5 Pro performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 57.6% (#38 of 61) against 59.7% (#33 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 at low effort, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 59.8% against 33.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0051. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 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 6.8s per inference against 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.