Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.5% to 42.8%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0014 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster (2.7s vs 6.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.030
Output $/1M$2.50$0.130
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
69.6%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0001
Avg speed / sample2.70s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
60.9%
$0.0005

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.

On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 57.5% against 42.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0014. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 6.3s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.