Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus 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
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 56.3% to 50.0%.
Overall, Qwen3.7 Plus averages 58.9% (#35 of 61) against 59.7% (#33 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0008 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 7.8s per sample).
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 11, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.7 Plus | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | — | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Unknown | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.320 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $1.28 | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Not listed | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Not listed | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Vision Language | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Not listed | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Not listed | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Not listed | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 58.9% | 59.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0008 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.77s | 7.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 60.1% | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 50.0% | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | – | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 60.3% | 58.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 65.5% | 62.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 39.7% | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.2% | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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, Qwen3.7 Plus performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 58.9% (#35 of 61) against 59.7% (#33 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 56.3% against 50.0%. 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 $0.0008. Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 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.
Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 7.8s. 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.