Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Model comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 27B

Google against Qwen, compared on context, price, and verified benchmark results.

Catalog record checked September 26, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: High — see receipts below

Google

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Budget

vs

Qwen

Qwen 3.8 27B

Budget · Open weights

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationGemini 3.7 FlashQwen 3.8 27B
ProviderGoogleQwen
TierBudgetBudget
Context windowWinner: 1.05M262K
Max output66KNot verifiedUnverified
Input / 1M tokens$0.75Winner: $0.50
Output / 1M tokens$3.75Winner: $3
WeightsClosedOpen
ParametersNot disclosedUnverified27B dense VLM (Gated DeltaNet hybrid)
Reasoning levelslow, medium, highlow, medium, xhigh
Modalitiestext, image, video, audio, pdftext, image, video
LicenseNot disclosedUnverifiedApache 2.0
API model idgemini-3.7-flashqwen3.8-27b
ReleasedAugust 13, 2026August 13, 2026
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [high] (2026-09-26)39.1Not verifiedUnverified
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [xhigh] (2026-09-26)Not verifiedUnverified33.7
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (2026-08)85.8Not verifiedUnverified
DeepSWE 1.1 (2026-08)65.3Not verifiedUnverified
Humanity's Last Exam (2026-08)53.6Not verifiedUnverified

Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Benchmark receipts

Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.

  • 2026-09-26
    Artificial Analysis

    Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.

    Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check measuredAt.

  • 2026-08
    Google DeepMind model evaluation report (vendor, HLE-Verified full set)

    Agentic terminal work: multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.

    Comparable with caveatNot comparable with Terminal-Bench 3.0 or 4.0 (different task sets) or v1; harness configuration (container, time limits) also shifts results.

Pricing tiers

Gemini 3.7 Flash: Intro price $0.75/$3.75 per MTok through 2026-12-31, rising to $1.50/$7.50 from 2027-01-01. Multimodal input.

Qwen 3.8 27B: Hosted qwen3.8-27b lists $0.50/$3.00 per MTok on Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (API launched 2026-08-19). Open weights (Apache 2.0) for self-hosting.

BudgetRecord checked September 26, 2026

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is Google's efficiency-first multimodal Flash (3.8 Flash of 2026-09-02 is newer and stronger; Google keeps 3.7 for cost-focused routes).

Best for

  • High-volume multimodal
  • Agent loops
  • Cost-sensitive work

Watch out

Intro pricing doubles on 2027-01-01; lock rates if deploying long-term.

BudgetOpen weightsRecord checked September 26, 2026

Qwen 3.8 27B

Qwen 3.8 27B is Alibaba's compact deployment-friendly dense VLM — 262K native context (1M via YaRN), Apache 2.0 weights, distinct from the hosted Qwen 3.8 Max API.

Best for

  • Self-hosting on a single node
  • Multimodal input at small scale
  • Long-context on modest hardware

Watch out

Dense 27B means higher memory per token than an MoE of equal active size; video input is multimodal-input only.

When the cheaper one wins

Qwen 3.8 27B is cheaper on output at $3 per million tokens against $3.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — about 1.3×. Use the cheaper tier for classification, extraction, summarisation, and any task where the expensive model’s extra score does not change the accepted output. The expensive one only pays if your hardest task actually fails on the cheap tier. These are standard-tier API rates, excluding batch and cache discounts.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: High

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better.

  • Pricing verified on both sides — Input and output rates are verified for both models.
  • 3/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: max output, parameter count.
  • 1 shared named benchmark with differing scores — Measured on: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Newest catalog check was 2 days ago.
  • Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Related comparisons

Diving deeper on one model? Gemini 3.7 Flash · Qwen 3.8 27B

Common questions

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 27B

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Is Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 27B cheaper for input?
Qwen 3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.50 per million input tokens, against $0.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — roughly 1.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Gemini 3.7 Flash has tiered pricing: Intro price $0.75/$3.75 per MTok through 2026-12-31, rising to $1.50/$7.50 from 2027-01-01. Multimodal input. Qwen 3.8 27B has tiered pricing: Hosted qwen3.8-27b lists $0.50/$3.00 per MTok on Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (API launched 2026-08-19). Open weights (Apache 2.0) for self-hosting.
Is Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 27B cheaper for output?
Qwen 3.8 27B is cheaper at $3 per million output tokens, against $3.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — roughly 1.3× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Gemini 3.7 Flash has tiered pricing: Intro price $0.75/$3.75 per MTok through 2026-12-31, rising to $1.50/$7.50 from 2027-01-01. Multimodal input. Qwen 3.8 27B has tiered pricing: Hosted qwen3.8-27b lists $0.50/$3.00 per MTok on Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (API launched 2026-08-19). Open weights (Apache 2.0) for self-hosting.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Gemini 3.7 Flash accepts 1.05M tokens against 262K for Qwen 3.8 27B. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Do Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen 3.8 27B support the same reasoning levels?
Gemini 3.7 Flash exposes low, medium, high, while Qwen 3.8 27B exposes low, medium, xhigh.
Should I use Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Both sit in the budget tier, so the choice usually comes down to price and context rather than capability. Gemini 3.7 Flash suits high-volume multimodal; Qwen 3.8 27B suits self-hosting on a single node.
Can I self-host Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Qwen 3.8 27B publishes open weights, but self-hosting and third-party provider access depend on the licence, hardware, serving support, and availability. Gemini 3.7 Flash is a closed model whose supported access paths are controlled by its provider.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

  • Input price: Qwen 3.8 27B costs $0.50 per 1M tokens versus $0.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — a 1.5x difference at the headline tier.
  • Context: Gemini 3.7 Flash takes 1.05M against 262K for Qwen 3.8 27B — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
  • Measured capability: Gemini 3.7 Flash leads Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 39.1 to 33.7 (measured 2026-09-26).
  • Deployment: Qwen 3.8 27B publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
Run the model pickerEstimate stack costAll model comparisons

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.