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, and OCR.
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.
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 Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 82.8% to 73.5%.
Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 84.0% (#3 of 30) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (10.0s vs 18.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 984K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 2.4T total, ~95B active |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $1.88 | $6.00 |
| 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% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.97s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 69.4% $0.0024 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 77.0% $0.0013 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0007 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 86.9% $0.0014 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0007 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 82.8% $0.0011 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 82.1% $0.0026 | 80.8% $0.011 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 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, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 84.0% (#3 of 30) for Qwen3.8 Max. 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 73.5%. 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 $0.0016 per sample against $0.0074. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.0s per inference against 18.0s. 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.