Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5-27B
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B 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 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 80.8% to 58.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#6 of 61) against 70.8% (#28 of 61) for Qwen3.5-27B.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0043 per sample) and faster (16.5s vs 80.4s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 27B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $1.56 |
| 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 |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.2% | 70.8% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0043 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.50s | 80.37s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 71.0% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.8 to 71.6 | 50.5% ±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.6 to 75.0 | – |
| Counting (low) | 78.4% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7 | 67.6% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1 | – |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 80.2% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 88.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0 | 84.7% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 87.3 |
| OCR (high) | 89.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 96.2% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9 | 83.8% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 85.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 95.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8 | 58.1% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 | – |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview
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.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#6 of 61) against 70.8% (#28 of 61) for Qwen3.5-27B. 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 3.7 Flash leads with 80.8% against 58.1%. 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 $0.0031 per sample against $0.0043. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 16.5s per inference against 80.4s. 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.