Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 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 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 70.5% to 68.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 80.1% (#6 of 63) against 79.8% (#7 of 63) for Gemini 3.8 Flash.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.0045 per sample) and faster (11.0s vs 12.8s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashGemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashGemini 3.8 Flash
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosedUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.825
Output $/1M$3.75$4.13
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
80.1%
79.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0045
Avg speed / sample11.04s12.76s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0045
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.023
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0040
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.027
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0016
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0037
OCR (low)
73.9%
$0.0032
72.8%
$0.0049
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
Single value
73.5%
Transcription
91.3%
Structured JSON
86.1%
Text localization
26.4%
OCR (high)
78.8%
$0.010
78.7%
$0.039
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
94.1%
Structured JSON
90.9%
Text localization
58.6%
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0038
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.023

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 80.1% (#6 of 63) for Gemini 3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 70.5% against 68.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.0045. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.83 per 1M input tokens and $4.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.0s per inference against 12.8s. 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.