Roboflow

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Gemini 4 Argon 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 4 Argon 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 89.4% to 62.0%.

Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 69.5% (#23 of 63) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0058 per sample), while Gemini 4 Argon is faster (13.4s vs 18.0s per sample).

Gemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8 27B

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
ParametersUndisclosed27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1MNo published price$0.040
Output $/1MNo published price$2.30
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
87.5%
69.5%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1669.5%FP868.7%AWQ-INT469.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0058$0.0009
Avg speed / sample13.40s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
85.7%
$0.0051
–
by category
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
OCR (high)
88.0%
$0.022
–
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Reasoning (low)
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

Gemini 4 Argon

Gemini 4 Argon is Google DeepMind's frontier Gemini 4 model, built to sustain extended reasoning across long-horizon workflows in software engineering, enterprise knowledge work such as legal and finance, scientific analysis, and defensive cybersecurity. It accepts text, image, video, and document input and returns text, operating over a one million token context window. The model raises the maximum output length to one million tokens, compared with a 64K ceiling on earlier Gemini releases, so a single reasoning trajectory can run for hundreds of thousands of tokens before terminating.

On the visual side, Argon targets multimodal document comprehension, professional chart analysis, and retrieval of specific details from long recordings, reporting 91.7% on LVBench for long-video understanding and 71.6% on Chartography for chart reasoning. Google also reports 77.9% on DeepSWE v1.1, 51.3% on AutomationBench, 68% on CWE-bench v1, and first place on the Vals Index, which aggregates finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. Following Gemini API conventions, it localizes 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 alongside captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. Google describes adversarial training and automated red teaming for indirect prompt injection resistance, plus chain-of-thought and action monitors that halt execution when behavior drifts outside user intent.

Qwen3.8 27B

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 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 69.5% (#23 of 63) 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 4 Argon leads with 89.4% against 62.0%. 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 $0.0009 per sample against $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 4 Argon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.4s 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.