Roboflow

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Qwen3.5 27B 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
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 58.8% to 42.8%.

Overall, Qwen3.5 27B averages 64.3% (#22 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0007 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 7.4s per sample).

Qwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateFeb 2026Jul 2026
Context Window262K1.0M
Parameters27B
LicenseApache 2.0Proprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.195$0.030
Output $/1M$1.56$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
64.3%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0007$0.0001
Avg speed / sample7.38s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
58.8%
$0.0013
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
54.0%
$0.0002
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
78.1%
$0.0002
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
84.5%
$0.0009
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
78.3%
$0.0002
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0002
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.0065
60.9%
$0.0005

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

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, Qwen3.5 27B performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 64.3% (#22 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) 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 Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.5 27B leads with 58.8% against 42.8%. 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 $0.0007. Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. 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 7.4s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.