Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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
Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 90.6% to 78.1%.
Overall, Qwen3.5-27B averages 64.3% (#28 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0007 per sample), while Qwen3.5-27B is faster (7.4s vs 8.2s per sample).
Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 262K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 27B | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.195 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $1.56 | $0.470 |
| 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 | 64.3% | 70.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0007 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.38s | 8.24s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.8% $0.0013 | 58.5% $0.0007 |
| Counting | 54.0% $0.0002 | 59.5% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0002 | 90.6% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 84.5% $0.0009 | 88.9% $0.0003 |
| Data Extraction | 78.3% $0.0002 | 86.6% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% $0.0002 | 37.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 61.6% $0.0065 | 68.9% $0.0011 |
Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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.
Qwen3.8-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, Qwen3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 64.3% (#28 of 34) for Qwen3.5-27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 90.6% against 78.1%. 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 $0.0007. Qwen3.5-27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.5-27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 8.2s. 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.