Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 54.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#6 of 61) against 69.4% (#31 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0031 per sample), while Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster (16.5s vs 31.9s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 35B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.163 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $1.30 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | 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% | 69.4% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.50s | 31.88s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 71.0% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.8 to 71.6 | 52.9% ±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9 |
| 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 | 62.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| 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% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| 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 | 83.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.7 to 83.5 |
| 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 | 83.5% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 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 | 54.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 | – |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: 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.
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
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 69.4% (#31 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. 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 54.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0031. 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 31.9s. 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.