Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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 82.8% to 34.4%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 61.7% (#28 of 30) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0016 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 10.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $1.88 | $0.130 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | 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 | 84.6% | 61.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.97s | 6.32s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 69.4% $0.0024 | 42.8% $0.0001 |
| Counting | 77.0% $0.0013 | 46.0% <$0.0001 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0007 | 84.4% <$0.0001 |
| OCR | 86.9% $0.0014 | 84.1% $0.0001 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0007 | 78.3% <$0.0001 |
| Reasoning (low) | 82.8% $0.0011 | 34.4% <$0.0001 |
| Reasoning (high) | 82.1% $0.0026 | 60.9% $0.0005 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 61.7% (#28 of 30) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 82.8% against 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0016. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 10.0s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.