Roboflow

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Qwen3.7 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Qwen3.7 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 62.0% to 34.4%.

Overall, Qwen3.7 Flash averages 61.5% (#45 of 53) against 74.7% (#17 of 53) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0009 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 18.0s per sample).

Qwen3.7 FlashQwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 13, 2026

PropertyQwen3.7 FlashQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.030$0.214
Output $/1M$0.130$2.55
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
61.5%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0001$0.0009
Avg speed / sample6.28s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
42.8%
$0.0001
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
46.0%
<$0.0001
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
84.4%
<$0.0001
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
84.1%
$0.0001
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
77.3%
<$0.0001
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
34.4%
<$0.0001
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.0005
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

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.

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, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#17 of 53) against 61.5% (#45 of 53) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 62.0% against 34.4%. 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 $0.0009. 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 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.