Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Qwen3.7 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
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.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Qwen3.7 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 54.5% to 42.8%.
Overall, Qwen3.7 Flash averages 61.7% (#28 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0018 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 7.3s per sample).
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.030 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $0.130 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 61.7% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0001 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.32s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 42.8% $0.0001 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 46.0% <$0.0001 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 84.4% <$0.0001 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 84.1% $0.0001 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 78.3% <$0.0001 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 34.4% <$0.0001 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.9% $0.0005 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
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 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, Qwen3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 61.7% (#28 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 54.5% 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 $0.0018. Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 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 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.