Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro leads 72.2% to 39.7%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 76.8% (#11 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.010 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 8.4s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 67.4% | 60.1% |
| Counting | 71.6% | 50.0% |
| Identification | 100.0% | 84.4% |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 65.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 68.2% |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.1 Pro performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 76.8% (#11 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 72.2% against 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.010. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 8.4s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.