Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 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 82.8% to 31.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0018 per sample), while Qwen3.8 27B is faster (7.3s vs 10.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 27.78B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $1.88 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | ||
| 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% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.97s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 69.4% $0.0024 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 77.0% $0.0013 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0007 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 86.9% $0.0014 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0007 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 82.8% $0.0011 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 82.1% $0.0026 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 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.
Qwen3.8-27B 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 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 82.8% against 31.8%. 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 $0.0016 per sample against $0.0018. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 10.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.