Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 96.9% to 88.5%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 80.1% (#6 of 63) against 79.3% (#8 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.0080 per sample) and faster (11.0s vs 18.9s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8 Max

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
ParametersUndisclosed2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750No published price
Output $/1M$3.75No published price
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%
79.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0080
Avg speed / sample11.04s18.95s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
76.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1
$0.012
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
78.4%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9
$0.030
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
81.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0046
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
81.1%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1
$0.0091
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0027
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0037
OCR (low)
73.9%
$0.0032
74.0%
$0.0077
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
Single value
63.9%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
85.4%
Text localization
59.0%
OCR (high)
78.8%
$0.010
71.8%
$0.028
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
94.8%
Structured JSON
81.6%
Text localization
59.6%
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
75.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5
$0.0048
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
80.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1
$0.011

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.3% (#8 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 Identification benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 96.9% against 88.5%. 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 $0.0080. 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 18.9s. 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.