Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 82.1% to 35.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.012 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 11.5s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 19, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 81.8% | 59.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.012 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.52s | 7.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 70.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.7 to 72.6 | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 69.8% ±1.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.5 to 71.1 | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 81.1 | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | 82.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 82.4 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 76.7% | 58.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 75.5% | 62.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 82.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 84.1 | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 82.8 | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
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, Gemini 3.5 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 81.8% (#4 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 leads with 82.1% against 35.1%. 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 $0.012. Gemini 3.5 Flash is priced at $1.50 per 1M input tokens and $9.00 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.
Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 11.5s. 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 open prompts and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.