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

Qwen3.7 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 PlusQwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 11, 2026

PropertyQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modality—multimodal
Release DateJun 2026Aug 2026
Context Window—1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseUnknownCustom
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 AnsweringNot listedSupported
Document Question AnsweringNot listedSupported
Image TaggingNot listedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationNot listedSupported
Vision LanguageNot listedSupported
Model Features
Foundation VisionNot listedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesNot listedSupported
Multimodal VisionNot listedSupported
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 / sample7.77s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
60.1%
$0.0013
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)–
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
50.0%
$0.0004
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0003
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)–
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
60.3%
$0.0009
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
53.5%
Transcription
86.7%
Structured JSON
75.8%
Text localization
23.1%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
65.5%
$0.0042
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
89.7%
Structured JSON
81.3%
Text localization
30.4%
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
39.7%
$0.0003
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
68.2%
$0.0043
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$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, Qwen3.7 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.