Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B 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 31.8%.
Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 61.2% (#35 of 36) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 11.6s per sample).
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.425 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.55 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | 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 | 85.1% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.65s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 68.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0 | 54.5% |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6 | – |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1 | 41.9% |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 | – |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 78.1% |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 88.2 | 81.4% |
| OCR (high) | 88.8% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.0 to 89.4 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 97.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 97.9 | 79.4% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 81.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5 | 31.8% |
| Reasoning (high) | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4 | 62.3% |
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
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.
Qwen3.8-27B 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 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.1% (#3 of 36) against 61.2% (#35 of 36) 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 3.8 Flash leads with 81.2% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0033. 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 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.