Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Gemini 4 Argon and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 89.4% to 35.1%.
Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 13.4s per sample).
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Argon | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 87.5% | 59.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0058 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.40s | 7.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 82.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0 | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.1% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5 | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 86.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5 | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | 90.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 85.7% | 58.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 88.0% | 62.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 89.4% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7 | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 91.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0 | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 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 4 Argon leads with 89.4% against 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 13.4s. 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.