Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 48.3% to 31.8%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#16 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0018 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 7.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.450
Output $/1M$2.50$3.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Object DetectionDemo
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%
61.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0018
Avg speed / sample2.70s7.33s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
54.5%
$0.0036
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
41.9%
$0.0005
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
78.1%
$0.0005
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
81.4%
$0.0019
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
79.4%
$0.0005
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
31.8%
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
62.3%
$0.0087

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

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 3.5 Flash-Lite performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 69.6% (#16 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.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 48.3% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0018. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 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 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.