Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Models in this comparison

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

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 82.4% to 52.7%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#13 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 18.0s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 Max

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

Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$2.00
Output $/1M$2.50$6.00
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0074
Avg speed / sample2.70s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
80.8%
$0.011

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 69.6% (#13 of 24) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 82.4% against 52.7%. 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 $0.0074. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 18.0s. 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.