Roboflow

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.

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

Models in this comparison

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 59.5% to 50.0%.

Overall, Qwen3.7 Plus averages 67.4% (#19 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0008 per sample), while Qwen3.7 Plus is faster (7.0s vs 8.2s per sample).

Qwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal
Release DateAug 2026
Context Window1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.320$0.150
Output $/1M$1.28$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
object-detectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Vision Language
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
67.4%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0008$0.0004
Avg speed / sample7.01s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
60.1%
$0.0013
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
50.0%
$0.0004
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
84.4%
$0.0003
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
86.5%
$0.0009
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
83.5%
$0.0004
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
39.7%
$0.0003
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
68.2%
$0.0043
68.9%
$0.0011

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview

Qwen3.7 Plus
No description available
Qwen3.8 Flash

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 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 67.4% (#19 of 34) for Qwen3.7 Plus. 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, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 59.5% 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.

Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.0s 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.