Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 81.2% to 34.4%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 61.5% (#34 of 36) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 11.6s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.030
Output $/1M$0.130
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.1%
61.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0001
Avg speed / sample11.65s6.28s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0041
42.8%
$0.0001
Object Detection (high)
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.021
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0036
46.0%
<$0.0001
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.024
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0014
84.4%
<$0.0001
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0034
OCR (low)
87.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 88.2
$0.0024
84.1%
$0.0001
OCR (high)
88.8%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.0 to 89.4
$0.064
Data Extraction (low)
97.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 97.9
$0.0018
77.3%
<$0.0001
Data Extraction (high)
94.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9
$0.0089
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0034
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.021
61.6%
$0.0005

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

Qwen3.7 Flash

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 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 61.5% (#34 of 36) 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 3.8 Flash leads with 81.2% 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 $0.0033. 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 11.6s. 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.