Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

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

Qwen3.8 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 48.3% to 37.8%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.7% (#17 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0014 per sample), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster (2.7s vs 8.2s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 Flash

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

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.150
Output $/1M$2.50$0.470
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
69.7%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0004
Avg speed / sample2.70s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
58.1%
$0.0023
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
68.9%
$0.0011

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 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, Qwen3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 69.7% (#17 of 34) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. 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 37.8%. 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 $0.0014. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 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 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 8.2s. 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.