Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B 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 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 95.9% to 78.0%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.3% (#10 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0032 per sample), while Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster (14.7s vs 18.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.025 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $4.35 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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 | 83.3% | 74.7% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 14.66s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 58.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.9 to 60.4 | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 88.4 | 92.2% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4 |
| OCR (high) | 89.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.5 to 89.6 | 91.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 95.9% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 94.8 to 96.9 | 78.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 | 80.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Reasoning (low) | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.3% (#10 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) 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 Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 95.9% against 78.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0032. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 14.7s 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 open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.